.^JSTOF  PRiW% 


^^OiOQlQM 


ILj^ 


BR  225  .F8  1892 
Fulton,  John,  1834-1907 
The  Chalcedonian  decree 


C^ax^oiic  HToob  ^focum  l^ecfutes. 


THE 


Chalcedonian   Decree 


HISTORICAL  CHRISTIANITY,  MISREPRESENTED  BY  MODERN 

THEOLOGY,  CONFIRMED  BY  MODERN  SCIENCE,  AND 

UNTOUCHED     BY    MODERN    CRITICISM 


BY 

JOHN    FULTON,  D.D.,  LLD, 


NEW    YORK 

THOMAS    WHITTAKER 

2  AND  3  Bible  House 
1892 


Copyright,  1892, 
By  THOMAS  WHITTAKER 


Clre  Cfjarlotte  lEoob  Slocum  f  ertures. 


The  Charlotte  Wood  Slocum  Lectureship  on  Chris- 
tian Evidences  was  endowed  in  1890  by  the  lamented  lady 
whose  name  it  bears,  the  wife  of  Elliott  T.  Slocum,  Esq.,  of 
Detroit,  in  grateful  memory  of  the  life  and  labours  of  the 
Right  Reverend  Samuel  Smith  Harris,  D.  D.,  LL.  D,,  the 
second  Bishop  of  Michigan.  Mrs.  Slocum  departed  this 
life  in  Dresden,  6th  June,  1891. 

Bishop  Harris, — to  quote  his  own  words — "  moved  by 
the  importance  of  bringing  all  practicable  Christian  influ- 
ences to  bear  upon  the  great  body  of  students  annually 
assembled  at  the  University  of  Michigan,  undertook  to 
promote  and  set  in  operation  a  plan  of  Christian  work  at 
said  University,  and  collected  contributions  for  that  pur- 
pose, of  which  plan  the  following  outline  is  here  given, 
that  is  to  say  : — 

To  erect  a  building  or  hall  near  the  University,  in  which 
there  should  be  cheerful  parlors,  a  well-equipped  reading- 
room,  and  a  lecture-room  where  the  lectures  hereinafter  men- 
tioned might  be  given; 

To  endow  a  lectureship  similar  to  the  Bampton  Lecture- 
ship in  England,  for  the  establishment  and  defence  of 
Christian  truth:  the  lectures  on  such  foundation  to  be  de- 
livered annually  at  Ann  Arbor  by  a  learned  clergyman  or 
other  communicant  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

To  endow  two  other  lectureships,  one  on  Biblical  Liter- 
ature and  Learning,  and  the  other  on  Christian  Evidences: 


IV       THE  CHARLOTTE  WOOD  SLOCUM  LECTURES. 


the  object  of  such  lectureships  to  be  to  provide  for  all  the 
students  who  may  be  willing  to  avail  themselves  of  them  a 
complete  course  of  instruction  in  sacred  learning,  and  in 
the  philosophy  of  right  thinking  and  right  living,  without 
which  no  education  can  justly  be  considered  complete. 

The  first  of  the  Lectureships  projected  by  Bishop  Harris, 
that  for  the  establishment  and  defence  of  Christian  truth, 
was  endowed  in  1886  by  the  Hon.  Henry  P.  Baldwin  and 
wife.  The  second  to  be  founded  is  that  on  Christian 
Evidences,  and  it  is  in  fulfilment  of  the  earnest  wish  of  the 
Founder,  that  the  first  course  is  given  by  the  Rev.  John 
Fulton,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.  The  Lecturer  is  appointed  upon 
the  nomination  of  the  Bishop  of  Michigan. 

As  Mrs.  Slocum  executed  no  deed  of  trust  when  she 
placed  in  my  hands  Ten  Thousand  Dollars  for  the  object 
aboved  named,  I  have  thought  it  advisable  to  appoint  as 
Trustees  of  this  Fund  those  gentlemen  who  are  charged 
with  the  trust  of  the  foundation  for  the  Baldwin  ^lecture- 
ship; viz., 


Messrs.   Henry  P. 

Baldwin, 

Henry  A. 

Hayden, 

Sidney  D. 

Miller, 

Henry  P. 

Baldwin, 

2nd., 

Hervy  C. 

Parke, 

with  the  addition 

of  Mr.  Elliott  T.   Slocum. 

THOMAS  F. 

DAVIES, 

Bishop  of  Michigan. 

Detroit, 

November, 

i8gi. 

PREFACE. 


As  the  sheets  of  this  volume  have  come  to  me  from  the 
press,  I  have  sincerely  appropriated  the  lines  of  the  poet: 

Dum  relego,  scripsisse  pudet,  quia  plurima  cerno, 
Me  quoque  qui  feci  judice,  digna  lini; 

and  if  I  had  in  any  way  sought,  or  if  I  had  not  done  aii 
that  I  could  rightly  do  to  avoid,  a  task  which  I  knew  to  be 
so  gravely  important,  and  for  which  I  knew  myself  to  be 
so  ill  qualified,  I  should  feel  that  I  had  been  much  to 
blame. 

Such  as  they  are,  these  lectures  were  intended  mainly  to 
clear  the  way  for  abler  and  more  competent  lecturers  by 
showing  first,  what  historical  Christianity  is;  second,  that 
it  is  obnoxious  to  none  of  the  moral  objections  to  which 
provincial  and  popular  opinions  have  exposed  it;  third, 
that  it  is  in  no  way  invalidated,  but  marvellously  confirmed, 
by  the  progress  of  physical  science;  and  fourth,  that  it  is 
not  so  much  as  touched  by  any  of  the  so-called  results  of 
biblical  criticism.  Allowing  for  the  conditions  imposed  by 
the  form  of  composition,   I  think  this  four-fold  purpose 


PREFACE. 


may  be  seen  to  have  been  kept  clearly  in  view  from   first  to 
last. 

In  a  work  published  ten  years  ago  *  I  made  a  critical 
study  of  the  Decree  of  Chalcedon  as  an  authoritative,  and, 
to  this  day,  unrepealed,  settlement  of  the  Faith  of  Historical 
Christianity.  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  arguments 
set  forth  in  that  work  have  commended  themselves  to  men 
of  widely  different  tendencies.  I  have  therefore  allowed 
myself  to  hope  that  a  more  popular  treatment  of  the  same 
subject  might  be  useful.  If  the  view  which  I  have  pre- 
sented is  just,  Christianity  is  at  once  relieved  of  nine  tenths 
of  the  objections,  ethical,  scientific  and  critical,  which  are 
alleged  against  it;  nine  tenths  of  all  the  grounds  of  the 
divisions  of  Christendom  appear  to  have  been  factitious; 
the  existence  of  a  substantial  unity  of  faith  is  evident;  and 
the  only  possible  basis  of  visible  unity  in  the  future  is  made 
plain. 

In  a  work  of  this  kind  originality  is  impossible,  and  I 
should  certainly  have  no  sense  of  humiliation  in  borrowing 
from  the  learned  and  accomplished  writers  of  "  Lux  Mun- 
di."  The  fact  is,  however,  that  I  did  not  read  that  work 
until  these  lectures  were  out  of  hand,  and  consequently  my 
thesis,  that  the  Triune  God  of  the  Nicene  Creed  is  the  only 
God  in  which  modern  science  has  left  it  possible  to  believe, 
was  not  suggested  by  the  admirable  paper  of  Canon  Aubrey 
Moore.  I  have  held  the  same  view  for  thirty  years,  and 
the  advance  of  science  during  that  period  has  tended  only 
to  illustrate  and  confirm  it.  I  am  deeply  conscious  that 
•  "  Index  Canonum,"  New  York:   E.  &  J.  B.  Young  &  Co. 


FREFACE.  vii 


the  treatment  of  the  subject  in  the  Fifth  Lecture  is  defec- 
tive; but  I  am  sure  that  it  is  in  the  line  of  truth,  and  I  can- 
not but  hope  that  it  may  suggest  a  better  treatment  to  some 
far  more  competent  apologist  than  I  can  pretend  to  be. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  me  to  know  that  what  I  have  said 
concerning  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  rep- 
resents not  only  my  own  belief  but  that  of  Bishop  Harris, 
as  he  expressed  it  to  me  only  a  few  weeks  before  he  sailed 
on  his  last  voyage.  It  is  a  still  greater  pleasure  to  believe 
that  he  v/ould  not  have  dissented  in  the  main  from  any- 
thing contained  in  these  lectures.  J.    F. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE   I. 

MEMORIAL    AND    INTRODUCTORY,  ....  I 

LECTURE   IL 

WHAT    IS    CHRISTIANITY?  ^^ 

LECTURE   in. 

THE    CHALCEDONIAN    DECREE,         .  .  ^  .  .  6^ 


LECTURE   IV. 

THE    NICENE    CREED, 


103 


LECTURE   V. 

THE    GOD    OF    SCIENCE    IS    THE    TRIUNE    GOD    OF    CHRIS- 
TIANITY,         139 

LECTURE  VI. 

CONCLUSION,        .  .  .  .  .  .  ,  .183 


LECTURE   I. 
MEMORIAL   AND   INTRODUCTORV, 


LECTURE   I. 

ME MV RIAL  AN-D  INTRODUCTORY. 

1  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  saying  unto  me,  Write,  Blessed  are  the 
dead  which  die  in  the  Lord  from  henceforth.  Yea,  saith  the  Spirit, 
that  they  may  rest  from  their  labors;  and  their  works  do  follow  them. 
— Rev.  xiv.  13. 

Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good. — I  Thess,  v.  21. 
Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thomas,  because  thou  hast  seen  Me,  thou  hast 
believed.     Blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed. 
John  xx.  29. 

Truth,  which  only  doth  judge  itself,  teacheth  that  the  inquiry  of  truth, 
which  is  the  love-making  or  wooing  of  it — the  knowledge  of  truth, 
which  is  the  presence  of  it— and  the  belief  of  truth,  which  is  the  enjoy- 
ing of  it — is  the  sovereign  good  of  human  nature. — Bacon. 
To  fear  argument  is  to  doubt  the  conclusion.— Newman. 
Our  knowledge  being  very  narrow,  and  we  not  happy  enough  to  find 
certain  truth  in  everything  which  we  have  occasion  to  consider,  most  of 
the  propositions  we  think,  reason,  discuss,  nay,  act  upon,  are  such  as  we 
cannot  have  perfect  knowledge  of  their  truth.  Yet  some  of  them  border 
so  near  upon  certainty  that  we  make  no  doubt  at  all  about  them,  but 
assent  to  them  as  firmly,  and  act  according  to  that  assent  as  resolutely, 
as  if  they  were  infallibly  demonstrated. — Locke. 

The  undulatory  theory  of  light  and  its  radiant  energy  are  accepted  facts 
in  the  creed  of  science;  yet  the  ether  itself  is  only  a  hypothesis,  and  the 
undulations  are  an  inference. — Tyndal. 

Nothing  worthy  proving  can  be  proven. 
Nor  yet  disproven.     Wherefore  be  thou  wise, 
Cleave  ever  to  the  sunnier  side  of  doubt. 
And  cling  to  Faith  beyond  the  forms  of  Faith.— Tennyson. 

3 


MEMORIAL   AND  INTRODUCTORY. 


Believing  as  I  do  in  the  continuity  of  nature,  I  cannot  stop  abruptly 
where  our  microscopes  cease  to  be  of  use.  Here  the  vision  of  the  mind 
authoritatively  supplements  the  vision  of  the  eye.     By  an  intellectual 

necessity  I  cross  the  boundary  of  the  experimental  evidence 

This     .     .     .     is  the  habitual  action  of  the  scientific  mind. — Tyndal. 

Those  who  think  that  science  is  dissipating  religious  beliefs  and  senti- 
ments seem  to  be  unaware  that  whatever  of  mystery  is  taken  from  the 
old  interpretation  is  added  to  the  new.  Or  rather,  we  may  say  that 
transference  from  the  one  to  the  other  is  accompanied  by  increase;  since, 
for  an  explanation  which  has  a  seeming  feasibility,  science  substitutes  an 
explanation  which,  carrying  us  back  only  a  certain  distance,  there  leaves 
us  in  the  presence  of  the  avowedly  inexplicable. — Herbert  Spencer. 

A  science  without  mystery  is  unknown;  a  religion  without  mystery  is 
absurd. — Darwin. 

In  the  numberless  attempts  to  attack,  or  defend,  or  find  a  substitute 
for  Theism,  the  Christian  or  Trinitarian  teaching  about  God  rarely  ap- 
pears upon  the  scene Ordinary  people  take  it  for  granted 

that  Trinitarianism  is  a  sort  of  extra  demand  made  on  Christian  faith, 
and  that  the  battle  must  really  be  fought  on  the  Unitarian  basis.  .  . 
So  far  from  the  Trinity  being,  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  unfortunate  phrase, 
'the  scaffolding  of  a  purer  theism,*  non-Christian  monotheism  was  the 
scaffolding  through  which  already  the  outlines  of  the  future  might  be 
seen.  For  the  modern  world  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  remains  as  the 
only  safeguard  in  reason  for  a  permanent  theistic  belief. — Rev.  Aubrey 
Moore,  M.  A. 


The  opening  of  a  course  of  lectures  founded  by  the  late 
Mrs.  Slocum  in  memory  of  the  late  Bishop  Harris,  is  an 
event  which  illustrates  in  a  very  touchmg  way  the  shortness 
and  uncertainty  of  human  life. 

It  is  little  more  than  twelve  years  since  I  attended  Dr. 
Harris,  then  in  the  very  prime  of  life,  in  the  strength  of  a 
vigorous  and  healthful  manhood,  and  in  all  the  glow  of 
generous  and  enthusiastic  self-devotion,  to  be  consecrated 
to  the  high  office  of  Bishop  of  Michigan.     It  was  then  that 


MEMORIAL   AND  INTRODUCTORY. 


I  had  first  the  happiness  to  meet  the  foundress  of  this  lec- 
tureship in  the  flower  and  bloom  of  womanhood,  and  al- 
ready enriched  with  ''honor,  love,  obedience,  troops  of 
friends  "  and  many  other  blessings  which  are  commonly  re- 
served as  the  reward  of  venerable  and  revered  old  age.  Now 
both  are  gone,  and  the  place  that  knew  and  honored  them 
shall  know  them  no  more. 

It  was  not  long  after  their  first  meeting  before  these  two 
became  friends.  They  were  alike  in  mind,  in  taste,  in  as- 
piration; alike  in  loftiness  of  spirit,  alike  in  gendeness  of 
courtesy,  alike  in  their  clear  purity  of  soul.  In  my  frequent 
visits  to  Dr.  Harris  at  his  See  I  seldom  failed  to  meet  her ; 
and  when  I  met  her,  it  was  always  to  receive  from  her,  for 
his  sake  and  as  his  friend,  hospitalities  so  kindly  personal 
that  they  seemed  to  be  extended  to  me  for  my  own  sake, 
and  as  her  own  friend.  Little  more  than  three  years  have 
passed  away  since  I  met  her  at  his  open  grave  to  see  the 
kindly  earth  close  over  all  that  was  left  of  our  dear  friend, 
her  Bishop  and  my  brother  of  many  years.  Only  two  years 
more  and  the  shadow  of  death  fell  on  her,  too;  and  it  was 
then,  in  the  full  prospect  of  her  approaching  end,  that  she 
begged  me  to  edit  for  her  a  small  volume  of  selections 
which  she  had  copied  with  her  own  hand  from  the  unpub- 
lished writings  of  Bishop  Harris.  It  is  a  happiness  to  me 
to  know  that  the  little  book,  prepared  in  memory  of  him, 
became  a  consolation  to  herself  when  lying  on  her  death- 
bed in  a  foreign  land,  and  that  its  pages  brought  her  messages, 
not  as  from  the  dead,  but  as  from  the  living,  of  that  glorious 
immortality  without  the  hope  of  which  both  life  and  death 


6  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

are  gloomy  and  inexplicable  mysteries.  It  was  character- 
istic of  Mrs.  Slocum  that,  on  the  very  day  when  she  received 
from  her  physician  what  she  fully  understood  to  be  a  sen- 
tence of  death,  she  made  arrangements  for  the  endowment 
of  this  lectureship,  and  at  the  same  time  requested  her 
Bishop,  the  Right  Reverend  Dr.  Davies,  to  appoint  me  to 
deliver  the  inaugural  course  of  lectures  on  the  new  founda- 
tion. It  was  a  duty  which  I  would  gladly  have  avoided  ; 
for  you  will  understand,  as  I  have  always  understood,  that 
the  reason  of  my  appointment  was  not  any  special  qualifica- 
tion of  mine  for  the  duty  devolved  upon  me,  but  only  the 
long  and  dear  and  confidential  friendship  which  existed  be- 
tween your  late  Bishop  and  myself.  In  short,  the  honor 
done  to  me  was  done  for  his  sake,  and  was  meant  to  be  an 
additional  but  incidental  tribute  of  love  to  him.  So  done 
and  so  meant,  it  was  an  honor  which  I  could  not  properly 
decline. 

The  subject  of  discourse  proposed  to  lecturers  on  this 
foundation  was  likewise  meant,  I  think,  to  be  a  sympathetic 
tribute  to  Bishop  Harris.  It  is  commonly  supposed  that 
Bishops  and  other  clergymen  are  morally  bound,  and  are 
intellectually  able,  to  pass  their  lives  in  perfect  and  unfal- 
tering certitude  of  all  the  truths  of  Christianity.  It  is  not 
so.  There  can  be  no  moral  obligation  to  escape  the  Provi- 
dence of  God  ;  and  it  is  the  Providence  of  God  which  some- 
times permits  the  truest  of  His  saints  to  be  doubtful,  as  the 
Apostle,  St.  Thomas,  was  caused  or  suff"ered  to  be  doubtful, 
of  divine  truths.  Neither  is  it  intellectually  possible  for 
men  of  active  and  veracious  minds  to  escape  the  sore  trial 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY, 


of  doubt  in  an  age  like  this  ;  and  those  to  whom  the  defence 
and  propagation  of  the  faith  have  been  specially  committed 
are  required  by  the  obligations  of  their  office  to  put  them- 
selves int'O  special  danger  of  doubt,  because,  if  they  would 
resolve  the  questions  of  their  age  for  other  men,  they  must 
first  endeavor  to  study  them  so  candidly  as  to  appreciate 
and  feel  their  difficulty.  Besides,  in  the  Church,  as  in  all 
living  bodies,  there  is  a  continuous  process  of  growth,  and 
growth  includes  a  constant  casting  out  of  old  and  worn 
material  as  well  as  the  assimilation  of  fresh  nourishment. 
Naturally,  it  is  in  men  of  great  intellectual  and  spiritual 
faculties  that  this  twofold  process  goes  on  most  powerfully, 
and,  at  times,  most  painfully.  They  are  called  of  God  to 
travail  that  in  other  souls  truth  may  be  born  without  travail 
and  without  pain.  It  was  surely  not  in  the  nature  of  your 
late  Bishop  to  evade  that  part  of  his  function  as  a  Master  in 
Israel.  He  did  not  evade  it.  When  a  point  seemed  to  be 
fairly  made  against  Christianity,  he  endeavored  to  appreciate 
its  full  force,  believing  that  an  honest  study  of  it  would  re- 
sult either  in  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  difficulty  or  in  an 
elimination  from  his  conception  of  Christianity  of  something 
which  does  not  properly  belong  to  it.  For  years  it  was  my 
pleasure  to  see  his  mind  grow  in  clearness  and  strength  of 
conviction  by  that  honest  method  of  investigation.  I  have 
known  the  day,  sometimes  the  very  hour,  when  some  old 
misapprehension  fell  like  a  scale  from  his  eyes,  only  to  leave 
essential  truth  clearer  than  before.  It  has  been  said  that  he 
changed  some  of  his  views  even  after  he  became  a  Bishop. 
That  is  true.      He  did,  undoubtedly,   change  some  of  his 


8  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

views.  I  doubt  whether  any  single  view  of  his  was  quite 
the  same  in  his  last  days  as  when  I  first  knew  him.  It  was 
impossible  that  the  views  of  such  a  man  should  not  be 
changed  during  twenty  years  of  growth,  and  I  suppose  that 
some  changes  of  his  later  years  were  not  so  much  changes 
belonging  to  that  period  as  recognitions  of  a  change  that 
had  really  occurred  long  before.  Yet  the  greatest  change 
of  all  did  certainly  occur  while  he  was  Bishop  of  Michigan. 
It  was  then  that  he  passed  through  one  of  those  intense  and 
almost  desperate  soul-struggles  which  seem  to  be  necessary 
in  the  education  of  the  saints.  In  a  time  of  sore  affliction, 
and  beside  a  new-made  grave,  the  light  of  faith  faded  and  he 
groped  for  many  days  in  intellectual  and  spiritual  gloom. 
I  have  often  thought  that  the  immediate  cause  of  that  crisis 
— for  it  was  a  crisis — in  his  life  was  largely  physical.  His 
weary  brain  lost  for  a  time  its  wonted  power,  and  what  he 
took  to  be  an  eclipse  of  faith  was  rather  a  collapse  of  physi- 
cal strength.  Whatever  its  cause  was,  it  was  met  with  per- 
fect honesty.  As  he  afterwards  said  to  me,  it  was  a  matter 
of  life  and  death  to  him  to  ascertain  beyond  the  possibility 
of  further  question  vvhere  he  must  thenceforth  stand.  So, 
for  many  days  he  shut  himself  up  in  the  retirement  of  his 
study,  and  there,  alone  with  God,  he  searched  and  proved 
the  groundwork  of  his  faith.  Again  the  light  shone  down 
upon  him,  never  more  to  fade  in  this  world  or  any  other  ; 
but  after  such  an  experience,  no  man  ever  sees  things  as  he 
did  before.  Things  that  once  looked  large  dwindle  to  in- 
significance, while  other  things  stand  out  pre-eminent  in  new 
and  marvellous  majesty  of  greatness.     In  the  lives  of  saints 


MEMORIAL  AND   LVTRODUCTORY.  9 

such  crises  are  like  passages  from  dimly  lighted  chambers 
into  the  full  light  of  day.  So  this  crisis  was  to  Bishop 
Harris.  Thenceforth,  I  think,  his  Christian  faith  was  sim- 
pler, stronger  and  incomparably  more  assured  and  more  se- 
rene than  it  had  ever  been  before  ;  but  I  know  he  felt  that 
much  of  the  bitterness  of  that  trial  might  have  been  spared 
him,  if  the  present  state  of  Christian  apologetics  had  been 
more  satisfactory,  and  particularly  if  the  essential  verities 
of  Christianity  had  been  more  cle-arly  discriminated  than 
they  generally  are  from  the  mass  of  doctrinal  opinions  which 
are  often  set  forth  as  essential  elements  of  Christianity.  Had 
he  been  called  to  name  a  subject  of  discourse  for  such  a 
lectureship  as  this,  I  believe  he  would  have  named  the  Evi- 
dences of  Christianity  ;  and  therefore  I  believe  it  was  a  true 
and  sympathetic  insight  which  led  Mrs.  Slocum  to  select 
that  as  the  subject  of  a  lectureship  established  to  perpetuate 
his  sacred  memory. 

But  she  chose  it  also,  I  believe,  because,  in  some  re- 
spects, her  own  experience  was  not  unlike  that  of  her 
friend  and  Bishop.  She  was  no  unwomanly  sceptic,  but 
neither  was  she  unaffected  by  the  questions  of  our  age.  A 
mind  like  hers  could  not  fail  to  understand  and  feel  the 
force  of  many  of  the  sceptical  arguments  v/hich  now  fmd 
their  way  into  all  literature,  permanent  and  ephemeral,  and 
she  could  not  be  expected  to  be  always  ready  with  an  an- 
swer. In  a  word,  she  suffered  more  or  less — I  know  not 
how  much — from  what  has  been  called  "  the  malady  of  our 
time,''  a  malady  which  will  yet  prove,  I  trust,  to  have  been 
the  growing  pains  of  a  new  spring-time  in  the  spiritual  pro- 


10  MEMORIAL   AND  INTRODUCTORY. 


gress  of  mankind.  Suffer  as  she  might,  however,  and  per- 
plexed though  she  might  sometimes  be,  she  clung  with  all 
her  heart  to  Christ  and  His  religion,  "believing  where  she 
could  not  prove,"  and  feeling  sure  that  there  must  be 
proofs,  if  she  only  knev/  them,  of  the  hope  that  lived  in 
her  without  them.  So,  I  think  she  won  the  blessing  of 
Him  who  said,  ''Blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and 
yet  have  believed."  I  think,  too,  that  it  was  out  of  her 
own  personal  experience  that  she  learned  the  great  need  r,nd 
the  high  value  of  Christian  apologetics;  and  while  she  chose 
the  Christian  Evidences  as  the  subject  of  this  lectureship 
first  and  chiefly  in  honor  of  Bishop  Harris,  I  believe  she 
would  have  chosen  it  all  the  more  if  it  had  ever  occurred  to 
her  to  reflect  that  such  an  endowment  as  this  would  surely 
be  memorial  of  herself  as  well  as  of  him. 

It  is  perhaps  my  duty  here  to  say  that  she  desired  the 
lecturers  on  this  foundation  to  enjoy  and  use  the  utmost 
freedom  in  the  treatment  of  their  great  subject.  She  did 
not  wish  these  lectures  to  be  merely  formal  repetitions  of 
old  arguments.  Her  hope  was  that  successive  lecturers 
would  contribute  some  fruit  of  their  own  thought  or  their 
own  research  to  the  confirmation  of  the  Christian  Faith,  or 
at  least  of  some  part  of  that  faith,  so  that  living  thought 
might  be  employed  in  meeting  and  removing  present 
causes  of  religious  doubt  and  perplexity  as  they  from  time 
to  time  arise. 

For  my  own  part  I  have  consented  to  deliver  this  inaugu- 
ral course  of  lectures  on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity  only 
in  deference  to  the  urgently  expressed  wish  of  the  Found- 


MEMORIAL   AND  INTRODUCTORY.  \\ 

ress  and  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese.  It  is  a  task  which  few 
men  are  competent  to  perform  with  satisfaction  to  them- 
selves or  others,  and  of  the  few  I  am  not  vain  enough  to 
count  myself  as  one.  I  should  have  felt  myself  bound  to 
decline  it  if  I  had  understood  it  to  require  of  me  all  that 
seems  at  first  sight  to  be  included  in  the  title  of  the  lecture- 
ship. To  present  the  slightest  outline  of  ''the  Evidences 
of  Christianity  "  in  a  course  of  six  or  eight  lectures  is  hardly 
possible,  and  if  it  were,  it  would  tax  the  powers  of  genius 
itself  to  array  and  marshal  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
them  evident  to  the  reason  and  convincing  to  the  heart.  A 
duty  which  can  never  be  performed  unless  some  rare  and 
happy  conjunction  of  circumstances  shall  bring  both  genius 
and  learning  to  a  work  of  almost  unimaginable  difficulty, 
cannot  be  the  duty  required  of  a  lecturer  on  this  foundation. 
I  shall  endeavor  presently  to  show  the  far  humbler  work 
which  I  have  proposed  to  myself  in  the  present  course. 

First  of  all,  however,  allow  me  to  observe  that  there  can 
be  no  doubt  of  the  need  of  fresh  presentations  of  the  evi- 
dences of  the  Christian  religion.  The  old  apologetics  are 
no  longer  satisfactory.  At  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  cent- 
ury, the  intellectual,  and  therefore  the  religious,  point  of 
view  has  been  notably  changed  from  that  of  the  preceding 
period.  The  world  in  which  we  live  and  the  universe  to 
which  it  belongs  are  not  the  same  world  and  the  same  uni- 
verse to  us  that  they  were  to  our  grand-fathers  and  our 
great  grand-fathers.  The  world  which,  even  fifty  years  ago, 
a  Chalmers  could  imagine  to  be  the  spiritual  center  of  the 
universe,  has  shrunk  into  relative  insignificance,  while  the 


12  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

universe  has  grown  inimitably  vast;  and  in  both  there  has 
been  found  the  operation  of  an  order  which  transcends  that 
of  mechanical  arrangement  and  seems  to  rise  to  that  of  or- 
ganic life.  In  short,  whereas  our  forefathers  thought  of  na- 
ture as  a  vast  machine,  we  have  begun  to  recognize  in  it  a 
cosmos;  and  even  now,  as  science  prosecutes  her  varied 
search,  we  know  not  whereunto  our  thoughts  shall  grow, 
nor  whether  we  may  not  ytX.  be  compelled  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  cosmos  is  a  living  organism. 

Naturally,  the  idea  of  God  has  grown  with  our  concep- 
tion of  that  which  we  are  wont  to  call  His  works.  It  is 
a  notable  thing  that  dogmatic  atheism  has  perished  ;  if  it 
exists  at  all,  it  is  no  longer  avowed  ;  and  in  believing 
minds  the  idea  of  the  great  Creator  has  grown  so  grandly 
that  the  worship  of  their  earlier  years  now  seems  to  some  of 
them  to  have  been  an  almost  irreverent  familiarity.  On 
the  other  hand,  however,  there  are  many  who  hold  it  to  be 
impossible  for  any  human  being  to  know  anything  of  the 
*'  Inscrutable  Power"  which  they  confess  to  be  revealed  in 
the  cosmos,  beyond  the  single  fact  that  its  existence  "is 
the  most  certain  of  all  things ; "  but  agnosticism,  while  it 
has  nothing  in  common  with  the  deism  which  prevailed  in 
the  last  century,  is  a  categorical  denial  of  atheism.  Thus 
it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  weapons  of  Christian  argument 
which  were  sharp  enough  in  conflict  with  the  atheists 
and  deists  of  a  century  ago,  are  edgeless  and  pointless 
against  the  present  adversary.  I  do  not  say  that  those 
arguments  were  not  substantially  sound  ;  I  hold  them  to 
have  been  valid  arguments  against  the  forms  of  unbelief 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY.  13 

they  were  intended  to  meet.  Nevertheless,  the  existing 
scepticism,  which  is  neither  atheistic  nor  deistic,  but  agnos- 
tic, requires  other  and  different  treatment,  and,  I  will  add, 
a  far  nobler  and  more  catholic  conception  of  Christianity 
as  its  antidote,  than  that  which  sufficed  for  the  treatment 
of  atheism  or  deism. 

In  the  bosom  of  Christianity  itself  there  has  been  a  shift- 
ing of  the  intellectual  point  of  view  hardly  less  remarkable 
than  that  which  has  been  caused  by  the  discoveries  of  sci- 
ence. There  was  a  time  when  Christians  were  so  called 
because  they  frankly  accepted  Christ  as  the  Son  of  Man 
and  the  Son  of  God  without  attempting  too  precisely  to  de- 
fine the  meaning  of  those  terms.  Soon,  however,  the  sub- 
tle Greek  intellect  demanded,  as  the  Hebrew  did  not,  that 
the  Christ-idea  should  be  philosophically  adjusted  to  the 
conception  of  God  and  the  universe  ;  and  after  all  these 
ages  one  may  perhaps  be  permitted  charitably  to  believe  that 
even  the  daring  speculations  of  Arius,  erroneous  as  they 
were,  and  disastrous  to  Christianity  as  their  acceptance 
must  have  been,  were  intended  as  an  effort  to  reconcile  the 
divinity  of  Christ  with  the  unity  of  God.  In  fact  they  would 
have  made  of  Christ  a  sort  of  secondary  God,  and  so  would 
have  realized  the  purpose  of  their  author  in  no  way  what- 
ever Their  actual  result  was  to  compel  the  universal 
Church,  in  its  corporate  capacity,  to  do  what  the  Alexan- 
drian presbyter  had  failed  to  do,  that  is,  to  furnish  a  scien- 
tific statement  of  the  essential  things  of  Christian  theology; 
and  when  the  undivided  Catholic  Church  had  spoken,  that 
cause  of  questioning  was  at  rest.     Afterwards,  in  the  Euro- 


14  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

pean  world,  there  came  a  time — which  we  may  not  call  an 
evil  time,  since  all  times  are  necessary,  and  therefore  no 
time  can  be  evil — when  men  began  to  think  that  a  part  of 
Christendom  was  competent  to  determine  questions  of  faith 
and  order  in  the  name  of  the  whole  body  ;  and  then,  when 
Rome  had  spoken,  there  was  supposed  to  be  an  end  of  con- 
troversy. Id  truth  there  was  an  end  of  nothing  ;  and,  so 
far  from  endmg  controversy,  the  excess  of  Roman  dogma- 
tism, accompanied  with  enormous  papal  immoralities,  pre- 
cipitated the  revolt  of  the  Reformation.  When  the  author- 
ity of  Rome  was  cast  away,  the  reformers  felt  the  necessity 
of  some  other  authority  to  set  in  place  of  Rome,  and  that 
supreme  authority  they  found  ir  Holy  Scripture.  In  the 
Church  of  England  this  supremacy  was  stated  with  the  ut- 
most caution  ;  and,  as  the  constitution  and  the  essential 
doctrine  of  that  Church  remained  as  they  had  been  inherited 
from  the  primitive  Church,  many  things  were  already  set- 
tled for  the  Church  of  England  which  the  continental  re- 
formers, in  founding  their  new  Churches,  had  to  settle  for 
themselves.  To  them  the  literal  words  of  Holy  Scriptures 
had  an  altogether  divine  sanction  ;  and  although  the  def- 
initions of  their  doctrine  of  the  Scripture  were  generally 
framed  with  praiseworthy  moderation,  their  descendants 
began  within  twc  or  three  generations  to  insist  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  do  not  only  contain  God's  word  to  man- 
kind, but  that,  in  every  line,  letter  and  syllable,  they  are 
that  very  and  infallible  word  itself  Among  most  English 
speaking  Protesants,  and  even  by  many  members  of  the 
Church  of  England,  this  thoroughly  rabbinical  notion  has 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY.  I5 

been  supposed  to  be  the  only  true  evangelical  belief  con- 
cerning Holy  Scripture.  Within  the  present  century,  how- 
ever, ii  has  been  rudely  shaken  by  the  application  of  a  rigid 
scientific  criticism  to  the  text  and  composition  of  the  Sacred 
Writings.  Hardly  had  the  method  of  Niebuhr  unravelled 
the  truth  of  ancient  Roman  and  Greek  history  than  it  was 
felt  that  the  same  method  of  investigation  could  not  be 
honestly  withheld  from  sacred  history,  and  as  soon  as  text- 
ual criticism  had  sufficiently  prepared  the  way,  the  higher 
criticism  followed.  I  am  not  concerned  at  present  with 
the  results  of  those  researches  further  than  to  note  that,  at 
every  step,  the  higher  criticism  has  made  the  Scriptures,  as 
the  sole  and  supreme  authority  of  Christianity,  more  and 
more  an  object  of  attack,  while  the  discoveries  of  science 
have  made  it  less  and  less  possible  to  defend  the  claims 
which  popular  preaching  has  asserted  in  their  behalf.  Thus 
the  extreme  assertions  of  popular  divines  on  that  subject — 
assertions  which  are  without  warrant  from  the  Scriptures 
themselves,  which  the  Primitive  Church  never  made  and 
never  heard,  which  neither  Rome  nor  her  schoolmen  imag- 
ined, which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  catechisms,  confes- 
sions or  articles  of  the  sixteenth  century  reformers,  and 
which  are  nothing  more  or  other  than  a  sectarian  opinion 
of  certain  English  speaking  Protestants  of  comparatively  re- 
cent date — these  extreme  assertions  have  been  utterly  dis- 
credited by  the  higher  criticism,  and  the  result  is  seen  in 
an  extreme  reaction  both  from  them  and  from  the  Christian 
religion  which  has  been  represented  to  be  bound  up  with 
them.     This  is  a  fact  of  the  time  which  must  needs  call  for 


1 6  MEMORIAL  AND  INTR  OD  UC  TOR  V, 

peculiar  treatment  from  the  Christian  apologist,  since  the 
scepticism  it  has  produced  requires  rather  a  vindication  of 
Christianity  from  the  unwise  misrepresentations  of  its  friends 
than  a  defence  against  the  assaults" of  its  enemies. 

These  are  the  two  chief  difficulties  of  the  present  time. 
It  is  often  said  jauntily  that  they  are  only  old  difficulties  in 
new  forms,  and  that  they  have  been  fairly  met  and  answered 
long  ago.  To  a  certain  extent  that  is  true.  But  it  is  not 
entirely  true,  and  if  it  were,  the  new  forms  of  the  old  dif- 
ficulties are  themselves  a  difficulty.  But  it  is  idle  to  say 
that  only  the  forms  are  new.  The  discoveries  of  science 
which  have  put  so  new  a  face  on  the  physical  universe  have 
created  a  difficulty  which  is  distinctly  new;  and  the  critical 
investigations  of  the  Sacred  Writings  which  have  put  so  new 
a  face  on  the  whole  subject  to  which  they  relate  are  hardly 
less  new.  How  new  they  are,  and  how  completely  new  a 
treatment  they  require,  may  be  seen  if  we  consider  that  they 
have  made  such  works  as  those  of  Paley,  and  such  "  short 
and  easy  methods  "  as  that  of  Leslie,  simply  obsolete.  In 
face  of  the  present  state  of  criticism,  Leslie's  argument  is 
unavailable  in  its  original  form;  and  yet,  if  precisely  the 
same  argument  which  Leslie  applied  to  the  Passover  and 
the  Israelites,  is  applied  to  the  Holy  Eucharist  and  the 
Christian  Church,  it  can  be  made  stronger  and  more  con- 
vincing than  ever.  Just  so,  Paley's  argument  for  the  divine 
existence  from  the  evidence  of  design  which  appears  in 
nature,  while  it  is  as  sound  as  ever  against  the  chance-theory 
of  creation,  is  wholly  inapplicable  in  its  original  form  to  the 
agnostic  theory  of  evolution,  and  yet  is  capable  of  a  restate- 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY.  I7 

ment  which  applies  both  directly  and  powerfully  to  the 
difficulties  of  agnosticism. 

The  difficulties  of  the  time  will  pass  away.  From  bald 
agnosticism  there  is  already  a  notable  reaction,  and  ere-long 
the  higher  criticism  will  be  followed  by  a  criticism  stiU 
higher  and  therefore  more  constructive.  The  first  turning 
of  virgin  soil  often  brings  malaria;  but,  with  steady  cultivation 
and  deep  ploughing,  the  malaria  passes,  while  the  lands 
which  were  once  a  wilderness  continue  to  yield  wealth  to  the 
laborious  husbandman.  Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves,  how- 
ever. When  the  present  difficulties  have  passed,  others  are 
certain  to  appear;  and  this  process  will  continue  to  the  end 
of  time. 

As  long  as  men  run  to  and  fro  on  this  earth,  the  sum  of 
human  knowledge  will  be  increased;  and  larger  knowledge 
of  things  will  bring  enlarged  perceptions  of  truth.  *  *  Truth, " 
said  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  **is  an  ever-flowing  river 
into  which  the  streams  flow  from  many  sides."  In  our  day 
physical  science,  history  and  criticism  are  pouring  countless 
rills  and  torrents  into  the  broad  stream  of  knowledge;  but  it 
is  philosophy  which  banks  the  stream,  making  it  a  navigable 
river,  not  a  devastating  flood;  and  it  is  theology  alone  which 
makes  that  river  a  true  river  of  God.  I  pray  you  not  to  be 
alarmed  at  those  two  words,  philosophy  and  theology.  In 
the  sense  in  which  I  use  them  they  mean  great  things,  but 
they  are  none  the  less  great  because  they  are  very  common 
things.  By  philosophy  I  mean  simply  the  universal  tendency 
to  compare  and  classify  objects  and  processes  which  fall  within 
our  knowledge.     The  child  who  has  observed  the  difference 


18  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTOR  V 

between  substances  like  water  or  milk  and  other  substances 
like  stone  or  wood  has  begun  to  philosophize.  When  he 
has  learned  to  call  the  former  liquids  and  the  latter  solids, 
he  has  made  a  large  advance  in  philosophy.  When  he  has 
discovered  that  all  solids  can  become  liquids  and  that  all 
liquids  can  be  changed  into  a  form  that  is  neither  solid  nor 
liquid,  his  philosophy  has  reached  the  higher  point  in  which 
it  finds  unsuspected  resemblances  between  things  that  have 
no  external  likeness  to  each  other.  When  he  learns  that,  so 
far  as  is  yet  known,  the  same  substances  which  he  observes 
around  him  exist  in  the  remotest  star  that  gems  the  sky,  that 
the  same  forces  which  he  sees  in  operation  here  are  operative 
in  the  furthest  regions  of  the  universe,  and  that  there  is  a 
reciprocal  attraction  between  every  speck  of  star-dust  and 
the  mightiest  sun  that  rolls  through  space,  he  has  entered 
the  vestibule  of  that  supreme  philosophy  which  discovers 
unity  in  the  sum  of  all  things  and  perceives  a  law  of  relation 
between  things  which  are  most  widely  separated  from  each 
other. 

Thus  philosophy  leads  up  to  a  conception  of  the  one 
sublime  Power  in  which  all  things  have  their  source  and 
center,  the  Power  which  Christians  call  God.  There  are 
some  who  say  that  philosophy  must  stop  there,  that  it  is 
not  concerned  with  God  nor  with  the  nature  of  God. 
That,  however,  I  think  we  must  deny,  both  as  a  matter  of 
reason  and  as  a  matter  of  fact:  as  a  matter  of  reason,  be- 
cause it  is  absurd  that  philosophy  should  end  with  a  bare 
discovery  of  the  sublimest  object  of  contemplation  that  can 
engage  the  intellect;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  because,  in  all 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY.  19 

the  history  of  philosophy,  from  its  crudest  beginnings  to  its 
loftiest  outreach,  whenever  the  conception  of  Deity  has  en- 
tered, it  has  been  a  fresh  beginning,  and  not  an  end,  of 
philosophical  speculation.  I  cannot  admit,  therefore,  that 
theology  and  philosophy  are  different  things,  and  that  phi- 
losophy must  end  where  theology  begins.  They  are  differ- 
ent but  inseparable  parts  of  one  and  the  same  intellectual 
process.  There  was  never  yet  a  theology  without  a  philos- 
ophy of  the  universe,  either  true  or  false,  nor  a  philosophy 
of  the  universe — not  even  agnosticism — without  a  theology, 
positive  or  negative;  nor  was  there  ever  a  time  when  the  in- 
teraction of  these  two  did  not  prove  their  intimate  connec- 
tion with  each  other.  In  short,  a  rational  theology  is  the 
crown  and  summit  of  philosophy. 

Because  of  the  intimate  relation  between  philosophy  and 
theology  it  is  evident  that  neither  of  the  two  can  remain 
stagnant.  Certainly  philosophy  cannot;  for  philosophy 
seeks  to  co-ordinate  all  the  facts  which  are  included  in  the 
sum  of  human  knowledge,  and  as  the  sum  of  human 
knowledge  is  always  increasing,  so  the  horizon  of  philoso- 
phy is  ever  receding ;  its  standpoint  is  constantly  shifting, 
and  from  time  to  time  some  new  discovery  or  some  more 
accurate  observation  requires  its  earlier  conclusions  to  give 
place  to  larger  and  truer  generalizations.  In  any  such 
case  it  may  chance,  as  it  has  already  chanced  in  many, 
that  theological  beliefs  will  be  called  in  question.  Then 
what  is  called  '*  a  conflict  of  science  and  religion" 
may  be  expected  to  take  place,  with  some  superfluous  heat 
on  both  sides,  but  invariably  with  profit  to  religion,  either 


20  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

by  confirming  what  is  true  and  permanent,  or  by  eliminating 
\vhat  is  temporary  and  erroneous,  in  theology. 

When  I  was  a  boy,  what  is  called  the  carpenter  theory  of 
creation  was  generally  prevalent  in  popular  theology.  It 
was  the  deistical  theory.  It  was  not  entitled  to  be  called 
the  Christian  theory,  since  it  completely  overlooked  and  ig- 
nored the  profoundest  truth  of  Christian  theology;  but  it 
was  extensively  held  by  Christians,  as  it  still  is;  and,  in  its 
Christian  form,  one  of  its  subordinate  details  was  an  asser- 
tion that  this  earth  and  the  universe  of  which  it  is  so  small 
a  part  were  created  only  six  thousand  years  ago,  and  in  the 
space  of  six  ordinary  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each.  Even 
in  my  boyhood  it  vras  considered  to  be  infidelity  to  deny  or 
doubt  that  statement.  Geological  investigations  have  proved 
it  to  be  wholly  untrue,  and  biological  investigations,  fol- 
lowing and  significantly  coloring  the  geological,  have  not 
only  proved  the  inconceivable  antiquity  of  the  universe,  but 
that  it  is  a  growing  and  evolving  universe,  in  which  creation 
is  still  continuously  proceeding.  I  must  not  now  dwell  on 
the  theological  consequences  which  this  new  and  nobler 
conception  of  the  universe  suggests;  but  even  here  I  may 
allow  myself  to  say  that  the  carpenter  theory,  with  its  six 
days  and  its  six  thousand  years,  and  its  conception  of  God 
as  a  contriving  and  creating  Being,  altogether  external  to 
the  universe,  is  well  lost  if  it  is  followed  by  a  revival  of  the 
older,  nobler  and  more  truly  Christian  theology  of  a  living 
God,  inhabiting  eternity,  working  through  eternity,  eter- 
nally creating,  and  eternally  abiding  immanent  in  the  uni- 
verse  of  which   He  is  Himself  the  Life,  the  Reason  and 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY,  21 

the  Substance.  The  carpenter  theory  is  valid  to  a  certain 
point  against  the  atheist;  but  it  asserts  only  a  contriving, 
constructing,  and  controlling  God;  and  it  is  no  loss  to  part 
with  such  a  theory  if  we  regain  the  neglected  and  half-for- 
gotten Christian  theology  of  the  Nicene  Creed. 

In  the  end — and  the  end  comes  soon — such  a  loss  is 
great  gain  ;  but  it  is  always  painful.  When  some  cher- 
ished belief  with  which  our  whole  religious  life  seems  to  be 
bound  up  is  called  into  question  and  assailed  with  energy, 
all  that  is  loyal  and  devout  in  us  is  roused  to  resist  the  en- 
emy. Some  are  able  to  resist  successfully,  and  to  rest 
throughout  their  lives  in  the  traditional  beliefs  and  theories 
of  their  childhood.  Theirs  is  the  happiest  lot ;  but  it  is  not 
the  lot  of  all.  As  the  Apostle  Thomas  was  permitted,  ''for 
the  greater  confirmation  of  the  faith,"  to  be  doubtful  con- 
cerning our  Saviour's  resurrection,  so,  in  later  ages  of  the 
world,  God  suffers  others  of  His  children,  for  the  quicken- 
ing, or  enlarging,  or  purifying  of  their  faith,  to  fall  into  bit- 
ter doubts  of  things  they  have  believed.  Happy  indeed  are 
they  who,  in  the  midst  of  doubt,  can  still  preserve  the 
spirit  of  faith,  neither  wilfully  refusing  any  new  light  of  rev- 
elation that  may  be  vouchsafed  them,  nor  impatiently  mis- 
taking transitory  views  for  ultimate  convictions  and  conclu- 
sions, but  remembering  always  that  ''whatsoever  doth 
'make  manifest  is  light,"  and  "  cometh  down  from  the  Fa- 
ther of  Lights,"  the  God  of  Truth. 

When  scepticism  is  merely  superficial,  that  is,  when  it  is 
d  fashion  of  conceit  and  a  pretence  of  vanity,  it  is  not  re- 
spectable— it  is  a  silly  sham.     When  its  root  is  in  the  moral 


22  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

nature,  and  men  "  love  darkness  rather  than  light,  because 
their  deeds  are  evil,"  such  scepticism  is  both  pitiable  and 
abominable.  Not  such,  however,  is  the  genuine  doubt  of 
a  sincerely  truthful  and  religious  soul.  Doubt  of  that  sort 
deserves  respect  because  of  its  sincerity,  and  sympathy  be- 
cause it  is  a  sorely  painful  trial.  In  the  true  sense  of  the 
word,  it  is  a  great  temptation.  Nevertheless,  like  many 
other  temptations,  it  is  inevitable.  To  many  moral,  so- 
cial and  intellectual  reconstructions  it  is  an  indispensable 
preliminary.  The  saints  and  prophets  are  called  to  it. 
Many  a  good  man  must  have  suffered  from  it  before  the 
Book  of  Job  could  have  been  written.  Nor  ought  we  to 
forget  that  before  the  Son  of  God  was  suffered  to  enter 
on  His  ministry.  He  was  driven  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wil- 
derness to  be  tempted  with  insinuations  of  doubt.  There- 
fore, when  doubt  is  not  courted  presumptuously, ,  but 
comes  to  any  man  providentially,  he  ought  to  remem- 
ber that,  in  human  life  and  growth,  times  of  temptation, 
weakness,  ignorance  and  helplessness  have  their  place  and 
purpose  as  well  as  times  of  strength,  wisdom  and  service. 
Honest  doubt  concerning  religion  ought  to  be  encoun- 
tered with  calmness.  It  is  not  a  sin;  but  it  is  a  grievous  sin 
to  treat  it  dishonestly.  If  doubt  is  sent  to  us;  it  raises 
some  question  to  which  God  intends  us  to  find,  or  help  to 
find,  an  answer,  and  a  true  one.  A  man  has  no  more 
right  to  delude  himself,  or  to  juggle  with  his  own  reason, 
in  answering  such  a  question  than  he  has  to  deceive  his 
neighbor.  There  is  a  sin  of  false  assent  as  well  as  a  sin  of 
wilful  unbelief     A  Christian  apologist  ought  to  maintain 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY.  25 

the  truth  by  no  argument  which  he  himself  does  not  believe 
to  be  sound  and  true.  It  would  be  unworthy  of  himself  and 
his  cause  to  refuse  to  see  or  admit  a  truth  which  seems  to 
tell  against  him.  It  is  his  duty  to  endeavor  to  appreciate 
the  full  force  of  his  opponent's  arguments;  and  unless  he 
does  so,  it  is  certain  that  he  will  never  satisfactorily  answer 
them.  Now,  I  think  we  must  admit  that,  in  dealing  with 
one's  own  doubts,  one  ought  to  be  as  candid  and  veracious 
as  in  dealing  with  another's.  It  often  happens  that  doubts 
which,  for  a  little  while,  fill  one  with  uneasiness,  pass  im- 
perceptibly away,  and  are  felt  no  more.  In  that  case  they 
are  by  no  means  to  be  pursued,  and  captured,  and  brought 
back.  But  serious  doubts  ought  to  be  seriously  and  vera- 
ciously  met.  If  they  are  simply  crushed  out  or  choked 
down,  they  are  not  destroyed,  and  the  homage  we  may 
then  pay  to  religion,  with  unfaith  hidden  in  the  heart,  is 
not  altogether  unlike  the  homage  of  him  who  betrayed  the 
Son  of  Man  with  a  kiss  ! 

No,  doubts,  when  they  are  real,  must  be  dealt  with,  as 
other  realities  are  dealt  with,  that  is,  honestly,  fairly,  vera- 
ciously.  But  all  doubts  are  by  no  means  equally  reason- 
able or  of  equal  importance.  Mere  puzzles,  for  example, 
are  not  doubts.  If  two  men  are  a  mile  apart,  and  the 
one  follows  the  other,  walking  twice  as  fast  as  he,  you  may 
puzzle  the  tyro  in  arithmetic  by  telling  him  that  since  the 
distance  between  them  is  first  one  mile,  then  one  half,  one 
quarter,  one  eighth  of  a  mile,  and  so  on,  the  second 
walker  must  forever  be  some  fraction  of  a  mile  behind  the 
first;  but  not  even  the  tyro  in  arithmetic  will  have  the  least 


24  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

doubt  that  when  the  more  rapid  walker  has  walked  two 
miles,  he  will  be  side  by  side  with  the  slower,  who  will 
then  have  walked  one.  The  puzzle  in  arithmetic  involves 
no  real  doubt  of  the  fact;  and  yet  there  are  very  many  such 
puzzles  in  religion  which  serious  people  honestly  mistake 
for  grounds  of  reasonable  doubt. 

Neither  does  our  inability  to  prove  a  fact  or  a  proposi- 
tion necessarily  require  us  to  doubt  the  reality  of  the  fact, 
or  the  truth  of  the  proposition.  We  shall  all  go  to  bed  to- 
night with  a  firm  conviction  that  the  sun  will  rise  to-mor- 
row morning;  but  until  it  happens,  not  one  of  us  can  prove  it. 
And  then,  to  use  the  same  illustration  in  another  way,  not 
one  of  us  believes  that  the  sun  will  rise  at  all.  We  all  of  us 
believe — most  of  us  would  say  we  know — that  it  is  our  own 
side  of  the  earth  which  will  rise  till  the  sun's  rays  reach  it; 
and  yet  I  suspect  that  to  some  of  us  who  are  quite  sure  of 
the  truth  of  that  proposition,  the  demonstration  of  it  might 
not  be  altogether  easy. 

Again,  it  is  not  rational  to  abandon  the  reality  of  a  fact 
merely  because  we  do  not  know  all  about  it,  or  the  sub- 
stantial truth  of  a  proposition  merely  because  it  is  imper- 
fectly enunciated.  You  remember  INIilton's  beautiful  apos- 
trophe to  Light  ? 

"  Hail,  holy  light  !     Offspring  of  heaven,  first  born  !  " 

I  suppose  there  is  nothing  of  which  Milton  felt  more 
certain  than  the  objective  existence  of  light  as  a  real  thing, 
clothing  the  universe  with  visible  splendor,   and  tinting  it 


MEMORIAL  A.VD  INTRODUCTORY.  25 

with  hues  of  infinite  variety  of  glory.  Yet,  in  our  day, 
nothing  is  more  certain  than  this,  that  outside  of  the  eye 
of  man,  or  other  eyes  which  are  like  the  eye  of  man,  there 
is  neither  light  nor  color.  There  is  something  in  nature 
which  reveals  its  presence  to  our  human  senses,  now  in  the 
form  of  light,  and  then  as  heat,  and  again  in  motion. 
What  that  something  is  we  do  not  know,  perhaps  we  never 
shall  know;  but  we  do  not  doabt  that  it  exists  nor  that  it 
appears  in  what  we  call  light,  heat  and  motion.  When  it 
produces  in  the  ether  certain  wavelets  or  vibrations  of  in- 
conceivable rapidity,  and  when  those  vibrations  are  re- 
flected from  material  objects  to  the  retina  of  the  eye,  the 
optic  nerve  is  unable  to  perceive  the  wavelets  or  vibrations 
as  they  really  are.  The  imperfect  sensation  which  they 
produce  in  it  is  light,  while  that  which  produces  the  sensa- 
tion is  not  light,  but  an  unimaginably  swift  vibration  of  the 
ether,  which  our  eyes  are  too  dull  to  perceive.  Again, 
when  those  vibrations  are  reflected  on  the  retina  from 
snow,  for  example,  they  are  reflected,  if  I  may  say  so,  in 
their  perfect  tone,  and  then  we  say  that  the  snow  is  white. 
In  Southern  seas,  some  of  the  light  vibrations,  falling  on 
the  surface  of  the  ocean,  are  absorbed,  and  those  that  are 
reflected  have  a  tone,  which  the  eye  perceives  as  blue.  In 
like  manner,  by  reason  of  various  absorptions  and  reflec- 
tions as  from  a  plate  of  beaten  gold  or  from  the  bosom  of 
the  rose,  we  have  other  tones  which  the  eye  perceives  as 
yellow  or  red.  But  there  is  neither  light  nor  color  any- 
where, only  swift  vibrations  of  the  ether,  till  they  reach  the 
eye.     Then  there  is  light  and  color;  but  the  light  and  the 


26  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

color  are  in  the  eye  and  not  beyond  it,  since  they  are  only 
the  eye's  sensation  of  a  form  of  motion  which  is  too  swift 
to  be  perceived  as  motion.  What  shall  we  say,  then  ? 
That  there  is  no  such  thing  as  light  ?  Or  that  it  is  only  an 
illusion  of  the  senses  ?  Or  that  since  our  visual  percep- 
tions are  partial  and  erroneous,  therefore  they  are  utterly 
fallacious  and  untrustworthy  ?  Surely  not.  Altogether 
subjective  as  it  is,  "truly  the  light  is  sweet.,  and  a  pleasant 
thing  it  is  to  behold  the  sun  ;  "  and  the  sweetness  of  the 
light  and  the  joy  of  vision  are  realities ;  vision,  imperfect 
as  it  is,  is  a  reality;  the  eye,  though  it  cannot  follow  the 
rapidity  of  light-vibrations,  is  a  reality;  the  light  sensation 
of  the  eye,  imperfect  and  erroneous  as  it  is,  is  a  reality; 
imperfect  as  it  is,  it  enables  us  to  perceive  at  least  the  exist- 
ence and  certain  variations  of  the  reality  by  which  it  is 
produced;  and  imperfect  as  it  is,  it  does  enable  us  to  per- 
ceive a  whole  infinitude  of  other  realities  and  to  know 
somewhat  of  the  mode  of  their  existence.  None  of  us 
doubts,  and  none  of  us  is  so  constituted  as  to  be  able  really 
to  doubt,  any  of  these  realities,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  we  are  learning  day  by  day  to  understand  more  and 
more  clearly  that  the  reality  of  none  of  them  is  what  it 
seems  to  us.  Before  one  can  have  learned  that  "things  are 
not  what  they  seem"  he  must  first  have  learned  that 
"things  are,"  and  he  must  also  have  begun  to  learn  some- 
thing of  what  they  are. 

Again,  in  religion,  as  in  everything  else,  we  must  be  con- 
tent to  ' '  know  in  part. " 

All  knowledge  is  partial.     Scientific  knowledge,   as  we 


MEMORIAL   AND  INTRODUCTORY.  27 

call  it,  is  partial  knowledge,  and  not  generically  different 
from  unscientific  practical  knowledge.  A  child  who  plucks 
a  violet  by  the  wayside  has  as  real  and  trustworthy  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  flower's  existence  and  of  many  things  concern- 
ing it  as  the  botanist  who  also  knows  its  organic  structure, 
or  the  chemist  who  has  analyzed  its  chemical  constituents  ; 
but  none  of  the  three  knows  anything  whatever  of  the  in- 
scrutable somewhat  which  determines  that  the  growth  of 
the  tiny  flower  shall  be  that  of  a  violet,  and  not  that  of  a 
lily  or  a  live-oak.  True  science  pretends  to  nothing  more 
than  partial  knowledge.  It  confesses  that  its  means  of  ob- 
servation are  imperfect,  that  it  is  able  to  investigate  nothing 
more  than  phenomena,  that  its  interpretations  of  the  sig- 
nificance of  phenomena  are  often  erroneous,  that  its  most 
probable  hypotheses  are  not  infallibly  true.  Nay,  it  ad- 
mits its  terminology  to  be  very  largely  a  terminology  of 
ignorance.  It  speaks  of  "time,"  but  does  not  know 
whether  time  is  a  reality  or  merely  an  imperfectly  conceived 
mode  of  relation.  It  speaks  of  "space,"  without  knowing 
what  space  is  ;  of  *'  force,"  but  it  cannot  tell  what  force  is  ; 
of  "matter,"  while  it  doubts  what  matter  is,  and  whether  it 
is  ;  of  "  cause  and  effect "  as  if  they  were  inseparably  con- 
nected, and  yet  it  cannot  tell  what  the  connection  is.  Yet 
science  does  not  therefore  conclude  that  a  rational  concep- 
tion of  the  course  and  order  of  the  universe  is  impossible. 
It  is  entitled  to  the  name  of  science  for  the  very  reason 
that,  in  spite  of  the  partial  and  fragmentary  character  of 
human  knowledge,  and  in  spite  of  the  imperfect  terminol- 
ogy it  is  obliged  to  use — terminology  which,  at  every  step, 


28  MEMORIAL  AND  JNTR OD UC TOR  V. 

is  a  confession  of  ignorance — it  is  able  to  present  a  rational 
and  intelligible  view  of  the  operation  of  nature  as  a  system 
of  sublime  and  all-pervading  order.  More  than  this  is  not 
to  be  asked  or  expected  in  religion.  Religion  does  not 
pretend  to  teach  all  things,  nor  to  explain  all  things,  nor 
to  make  known  the  innermost  reality  of  anything  in  heaven 
or  earth.  If  it  recognizes  power  where  physical  science 
recognizes  only  force  ;  if  it  recognizes  reason  where  science 
recognizes  order  ;  if  it  recognizes  life  where  science  recog- 
nizes growth  ;  if  it  considers  causes  and  effects  beyond  the 
present  evolution  of  the  cosmos,  and  affirms  that  in  "the 
backward  and  abysm  of  time"  "the  things  which  are 
seen"  can  have  been  made  neither  by  nor  of  the  "things 
which  do  appear  ;  "  if  it  offers  an  hypothesis  explanatory  of 
the  living,  growing  universe  in  which  we  live — an  hypothe- 
sis which  no  fact  known  to  science  contradicts,  which  con- 
tradicts no  rational  hypothesis  of  science,  and  w>hich  bridges 
every  gap  in  the  continuity  of  nature  for  which  no  merely 
scientific  hypothesis  accounts  ; — still  it  does  not  profess  to 
teach  all  things,  nor  is  it  to  be  lightly  disregarded  because, 
like  physical  science,  it  knows  only  "in  part"  and  must 
therefore  "prophesy  in  part."  All  that  is  asked  for  Christian 
Theology  is  that  it  be  treated  precisely  as  scientific  philoso- 
phy is  treated,  and  that  it  be  admitted  or  rejected  as  a  rational 
system  of  belief,  on  precisely  the  same  grounds  as  the 
theory  of  evolution,  let  us  say,  is  accepted  or  rejected. 
Only,  let  it  be  judged  by  what  it  is,  and  not  by  what  it  is 
not;  by  what  it  has  to  say  and  not  by  what  it  does  not 
pretend  to  say. 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY.  29 

By  a  somewhat  devious  path,  perhaps,  we  have  now 
reached  \  point  at  which  I  may  tell  the  modest  part  which 
I  have  set  before  myself  in  this  preliminary  and  merely 
introductory  course  of  lectures.  My  first  object  will  be 
to  clear  the  way  for  those  who  are  to  follow,  by  showing 
•what  is  included,  and  what  is  not  included,  in  the  intellect- 
ual system  of  "Christianity."  I  believe  that  no  greater 
service  can  be  done  in  these  times  to  the  cause  of  Christ 
than  to  make  a  clear  and  just  distinction  between  those  arti- 
cles of  faith  which  are  essential  to  the  Christian  religion, 
and  that  vast  mass  of  shifting  opinions,  true  and  false, 
which  Christian  people  have  believed,  or  disbelieved,  or 
forgotten,  without  impairment  or  improvement  of  their 
Christianity.  It  is  because  so  many  of  those  transitory  and 
provisional  opinions  have  been  falsely  represented  as  essen- 
tial parts  of  Christianity  that,  from  time  to  time,  when  some 
one  or  other  of  them  has  come  to  be  discredited,  Chris- 
tianity itself  has  been  thought  to  be  disproved.  It  is  sad 
sometimes  to  read  an  eloquent  lecture  against  the  Christian 
faith,  knowing  that  the  lecturer  has  succeeded  in  persuading 
his  hearers  that  Christianity  is  not  true,  and  then,  on  ana- 
lyzing the  arguments,  to  find  that  not  one  single  fact  or 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith  has  been  so  much  as  men- 
tioned in  the  whole  discourse — nothing  but  crude  opinions 
of  which  the  great  body  of  Christians  in  all  the  ages  never 
so  much  as  heard  !  That  is  one  part  of  the  price  which 
Christians  pay  for  their  unholy  and  unchristian  divisions. 
From  the  days  of  the  apostles  until  now,  nine  tenths  of  the 
divisions  which  have  rent  and  marred  the  Body  of  Christ 


30  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY. 

have  resulted  from  contentions  concerning  matters  of  opin- 
ion which  had  no  more  to  do  with  Christianity  than  with 
Buddhism  or  Mohammedanism.  Then,  by  and  by,  when 
those  opinions  have  been  established  in  popular  opinion  as 
necessary  parts  of  Christianity,  they  fall  again  into  disrepute, 
and  then,  in  popular  opinion,  Christianity  itself  falls  with 
them.  Is  there  anything  in  the  history  of  science  and  re- 
ligion sadder  than  the  story  of  Hugh  Miller?  Miller  was 
a  man  of  true  genius,  a  true  Christian,  and  a  man  of  science. 
It  was  his  misfortune  to  have  been  taught  that  many  things 
were  necessary  parts  of  Christianity  which  had  really  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  Believing  those  things  devoutly,  he  bent  his 
great  powers  to  find  illustrations  and  confirmations  of  them 
in  the  course  of  nature.  As  he  had  been  taught  that  human 
nature  was  depraved  at  its  source  by  the  fall  of  Adam,  he 
was  glad,  rather  than  sorry,  to  believe  that  in  the  old  red 
sandstone  there  are  many  proofs  of  a  physical  fall  in  other 
races  of  living  creatures.  It  seemed  to  him,  and  he  main- 
tained, that  successive  species  were  created  perfect,  only  to 
fall  into  subsequent  depravation  from  the  type  in  which  God 
had  originally  made  them.  Thus,  to  his  distorted  vision, 
it  seemed  that  animated  nature  had  been  nothing  else  than 
one  long  series  of  creative  failures.  One  would  think  that 
so  preposterous  a  view  must  have  repelled  belief,  but  un- 
happily it  was  not  so.  On  the  contrary,  when  his  own  in- 
vestigations proved  his  theory  to  be  wrong,  when  he  began 
to  see  that  in  nature  every  fall  had  been  a  fall  forwards  or 
upwards,  when  it  became  evident  to  him  that  his  Bible  was 
useless  as  a  scientific  text-book,  his  whole  faith  failed,  his 


MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY.  31 


Irain  reeled,  and  he  died  by  his  own  hand.  BeUeve  me, 
there  are  many  others  whose  faith  has  reeled  and  failed  be- 
cause they  have  been  forced  to  reject  alleged  truths  which 
they  supposed  to  be  essential  to  the  Christian  faith.  If, 
then,  I  shall  be  so  fortunate  as  to  be  able  to  discriminate 
the  verities  of  Christianity  from  opinions  or  beliefs,  whether 
true  or  false,  which  have  been  confounded  with  that  faith 
or  have  been  erroneously  represented  as  essential  parts  of 
it,  I  shall  have  done  some  service  to  the  Christian  religion, 
by  preventing  some  of  those  unhappy  misconceptions  of  it 
which  so  often  lead  to  loss  of  faith. 

Even  in  respect  of  the  essential  articles  of  Christianity  I 
shall  hope  to  point  out  a  distinction  which  m.ay  be  worthy 
of  your  careful  consideration.  It  is  usually  thought  that 
the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity  are  many,  that  they  are 
all  propounded  in  the  same  dogmatic  way,  and  that  they  are 
all  intended  to  be  held  in  the  same  way.  Now,  nothing 
could  be  further  from  the  truth.  The  dogmas  of  the 
Christian  Faith  are  few;  and  they  are  not  all  set  forth,  nor 
are  they  all  intended  to  be  held,  in  the  same  way.  I  should 
be  afraid  at  this  time  to  tell  you  how  few  the  pure  dogmas 
of  Christianity  are;  but  I  am  not  afraid  to  say  that  some  of 
the  Christian  dogmas  are  symbolical  or  parabolical,  not 
pure  dogmas  at  all,  but  illustrative  and  approximative  state- 
ments of  divine  truths  which  human  language  cannot  per- 
fectly express,  because  imperfect  human  reason  cannot 
perfectly  comprehend  them.  If  I  can  thus  help  you  to  see 
in  Christian  Creeds  not  fetters  of  the  intellect  and  shackles 
of  the  reason  but  helpful  aids  to  rational  and  hopeful  faith, 


32  MEMORIAL  AND  INTRODUCTORY 

I  shall  have  done  something  to  prepare  the  way  for  other  and 
more  competent  apologists. 

In  the  direct  discussion  of  the  Christian  Evidences  I 
shall  touch  but  two  points,  and  I  shall  touch  them  rather  by 
way  of  illustrating  a  line  of  argument  which  I  believe  to 
have  been  too  much  neglected  than  for  any  more  ambitious 
purpose.  In  my  opinion  Christian  apologists  have  held 
themselves  too  much  on  the  defensive.  I  believe  they  might 
find  advantage  in  what  I  should  call  the  method  of  apprecia- 
tive attack.  For  instance,  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  in  the 
fifth  lecture  that  if  we  should  admit  all  the  facts  which  are 
alleged,  and  adopt  the  method  of  argument  which  is  used 
by  agnostic  evolutionists  like  Mr.  Spencer,  the  result  would 
bring  us,  not  to  agnosticism,  but  rather  to  the  profound  and 
Christian  theism  of  the  Nicene  Creed;  and  in  the  first  part 
of  the  sixth  lecture,  I  shall  endeavor  in  like  manner  to  show 
that  if  we  should  admit  the  largest  conclusions  of  the  most 
destructive  criticism  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  has  any 
credit  among  men  of  recognized  critical  authority,  the 
essentials  of  the  Christian  Faith  would  nevertheless  remain 
unmoved  and  unscathed.  It  is  very  possible  that  I  may  not 
succeed  in  showing  you  these  things  as  clearly  as  I  believe 
I  see  them;  but  even  so,  my  failure  may  perhaps  suggest  a 
line  of  argument  which  some  other  and  abler  lecturer  may 
follow  more  successfully  than  I. 


LECTURE    II. 
WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY ? 


LECTURE   11. 

WHAT  IS   CHRISTIANITY? 

HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT    OF    PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY   TO  THE 
COUNCIL    OF    NIC^A. 

When  He,  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  is  come.  He  shall  guide  you  into  all 
truth.— John  xvi.  13. 

Ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  Me  ...  .  unto  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  earth.— Acts  i.  8. 

The  Christ  does  not  come  into  the  world  as  the  Founder  of  a  religion. 

— MULFORD. 

Every  idea  must  have  a  visible  unfolding;  a  habitation  is  necessary 
to  a  principle;  every  dogma  must  have  a  temple.  — Hugo. 

In  its  earliest  usage,  therefore,  catholic  means  universal  as  opposed  to 
individual,  particular.  The  Church  throughout  the  world  is  called 
catholic,  just  as  the  resurrection  of  all  mankind  is  called  catholic.  In 
its  later  sense,  as  a  fixed  attribute,  it  implies  orthodoxy  as  opposed  to 
heresy,  conformity  as  opposed  to  dissent.  Thus,  to  the  primary  idea 
of  extension  are  superadded  also  the  ideas  of  doctrine  and  unity.  But 
this  later  sense  grows  out  of  the  earlier.  The  truth  was  the  same  every- 
where, qtiod  sejHper^  quod  ubiqtte^  quod  ab  omnibus.  The  heresies  were 
partial,  scattered,  localized. — Lightfoot. 

The  life  of  the  Spirit  has  its  witness  to  the  world  in  the  Church. 

The  Church  is  the  company  of  all  faithful  people. 

The  Church  has  an  organic  unity  and  life. 

The  Church  is  the  witness  to  the  life  of  the  Spirit  in  humanity.  It  is 
not  the  source  of  the  life  of  the  Spirit,  but  the  witness  of  it.  The  Spirit 
is  not  the  gift  of  the  Church,  but  the  Church  of  the  Spirit.  The  words 
of  faith— which  cannot  be  transposed — are,  *' I  believe  in  the  Holy 
Uhost;  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  " — Mulford. 

35 


36  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

The  funclion  of  the  Church  with  regard  to  truth  is  primarily  to  bear 
witness  to  that  which  has  been  revealed.  It  does  not  primarily  reveal; 
it  tells  of  the  truths  which  have  been  embodied  in  the  histonc  life  of 
Jesus  Christ  or  explained  m  His  teaching.  One  is  its  Teacher;  one  is 
its  Master,  even  Christ.  It  holds  a  faiih  once  delivered  to  the  Saints. 
Hence,  from  the  first,  there  grew  up  some  authoritative  formula,  in 
which  we  can  see  the  germ  of  the  later  creed?,  which  each  Christian 
missionary  would  teach  his  converts.  The  Church  is  thus  primarily  a 
witness;  the  strength  of  its  authority  bes  in  the  many  sides  from  which 
the  witness  comes,  but  the  exigencies  of  controversy,  and  indeed  of 
thought  even  apart  from  controversy,  rendered  necessary  another  func- 
tion in  respect  to  truth.     The  Church  was  compelled  to  formulate,  to 

express  its  witness  in  relation  to  the  difficulties  of  the  time 

Its  first  instinct  is,  as  the  first  instinct  of  friendship  would  be,  to  reseni. 
intellectual  analysis  and  dogmatic  definition.  But  as  the  need  of  telling 
others  about  a  friend,  or  defending  him  against  slander,  would  compel 
us  to  analyze  his  qualities  and  define  his  attractiveness,  so  it  was  with 
the  Church's  relation  to  the  Lord.— Rev.  W.  Lock,  M.A. 

Before  we  can  consider  the  Evidences  of  Christianity 
with  profit,  or  even  with  intelligence,  it  is  necessary  to 
understand  what  the  Christian  religion  is.  Only  then  can 
we  know  whether  its  evidences  are  worth  considering,  and, 
if  so,  what  they  ought  to  be. 

I  shall  not  weary  you  with  discussions  of  the  derivation 
and  significance  of  the  word  religion.  Religion  is  a  fact  in 
human  experience,  and  it  is  with  the  fact  of  religion  that 
we  are  now  concerned.  Moreover,  religion  is  an  universal 
fact  in  every  stage  of  normal  human  development.  It  is 
said,  indeed,  that  on  the  face  of  all  the  earth  there  are  a 
few  obscure  tribes  which  are  wholly  destitute  of  religion. 
I  apprehend,  however,  that  this  assertion  means  only  that, 
in  those  tribes,  the  presence  of  religious  sentiments  or  ideas 
has  not  been  ascertained  ;  and  further  investigation  might 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  37 

conceivably  discover  unsuspected  evidences  of  a  supersti 
tious  origin,  that  is  to  say,  of  a  base  religious  origin,  of 
some  of  the  most  ordinary  customs  of  those  degraded  peo- 
ple. It  is  needless,  however,  to  insist  on  this  point.  It  is 
sufficiently  well  expressed  by  Hume,  who  says:  "Look 
out  for  a  people  entirely  destitute  of  religion  ;  if  you  find 
them  at  all,  be  assured  that  they  are  but  a  few  degrees  re- 
moved from  brutes." 

Religion  is  pre  eminently  a  social  fact.  I  do  not  at  all 
mean  that  it  is  not  a  personal  affair  of  the  individual. 
Every  religion  affects  and  controls  the  individual ;  it  often 
does  so  most  effectually  when  the  individual  himself  is 
utterly  unconscious  of  its  influence  ;  and  the  loftier  a  re- 
ligion is,  the  more  intensely  personal  are  the  sentiments  of 
duty  and  devotion  with  which  it  inspires  its  individual  ad- 
herents. Yet  history  testifies  that  no  religion  has  ever  been 
known  to  flourish  except  as  a  family,  or  tribal,  or  national, 
or  otherwise  social  institution.  No  religion  was  ever  yet 
invented  or  originated  by  an  individual.  Every  religion 
has  been  a  social  growth.  Men  who  are  called  founders  of 
historical  religions  have  never  been  more  than  reformers  of 
existing  religions — prophets  of  truths  which  other  men  have 
been  ready  to  accept  because  those  truths  were  already 
latent  in  the  religious  consciousness  of  the  time.  The 
Christian  religion  itself  did  not  originate  as  a  novelty,  but 
as  the  fulfilment  of  an  earlier  religion  ;  and  the  Christian 
religion  claims  to  be  the  most  pre-eminently  social  of  all 
'-eligions.  At  the  very  outset  it  was  sent  to  **all  nations"; 
it  was  intended  to  unite  mankind  in  one  universal   brother- 


38  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY ? 

hood ;  and  although  the  Christian  Church  has  been  rent  by 
human  folly  and  perversity  into  innumerable  warring  sects, 
societies  and  Churches,  every  one  of  these,  even  in  its  un- 
christian isolation,  bears  unconscious  testimony  to  the  es- 
sentially social  character  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  They 
avow  their  allegiance  to  "one  Master.'"  They  profess  to 
hold  that  all  true  Christians  are  members  of  ''one  Body," 
that  they  are  "members  one  of  another,"  and  that,  in  the 
obedience  of  "one  Lord,"  in  the  holding  of  "one  faith," 
and  in  the  enjoyment  of  "one  hope,"  they  have  all  received 
the  sacramental  pledge  of  "one  baptism."  All  Christians 
believe  themselves  to  be  in  vital  spiritual  union  with  one 
and  the  same  Divine  Head,  and  consequently  not  only  with 
other  members  of  their  own  Church  or  sect,  but  *vith  all 
true  Christians,  in  this  world  or  beyond  it,  who  have  ever 
lived.  Thus,  in  the  midst  of  schism  and  all  its  evils,  the 
universal  Christian  conscience  testifies  that  every  schism  is 
a  crime  against  the  social  constitution  of  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

In  all  religions  which  are  not  merely  superstitions,  and 
certainly  in  Christianity,  we  find  these  three  things  :  doc- 
trine, worship  and  duty.  Every  religion  acknowledges 
some  Object  (or  objects)  of  supreme  veneration,  requires 
or  recommends  some  form  of  worship  to  be  addressed  to 
that  Object,  and  sets  forth  some  code  of  ethics  which  it 
declares  to  be  religiously  obligatory.  Here  again,  excep- 
tions prove  the  rule.  Buddhism,  for  example,  has  neither 
God  nor  gods  ;  but  that  defect  is  confessed  and  supplied 
by  the  superstitious  worship   of  beings  who  are  not  gods. 


IVHA  T  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  39 

Shintoism  has  no  code  of  ethics  ;  but  its  adherents  supply 
that  lack  by  adopting  the  ethics  of  Confucius.  Mystics  of 
all  religions,  whenever  they  have  professed  to  abandon 
external  rites  of  worship,  have  invariably  fallen  into  formal- 
ism. 

We  may  assume,  then,  that  these  three  parts  are  to  be 
found  in  all  religions  ;  but  we  must  not  expect  them  to  be 
equally  balanced  in  all  religions,  nor  equally  prominent  at 
all  times  and  in  all  places  in  the  same  religion.  At  one 
time  or  in  a  given  place  we  may  find  that  the  doctrinal  or 
dogmatic  predominates  ;  in  another,  the  ritual  and  liturgi- 
cal ;  very  seldom  the  ethical  ;  and  when  the  ethical  does 
apparently  predominate,  it  is  often  because  matters  of  exter- 
nal observance  have  been  elevated  into  indispensable  duties. 
In  Christianity,  most  assuredly,  there  are  these  three  parts  : 
doctrine,  worship  and  a  code  of  morals  ;  no  one  of  the 
three  can  be  excluded  from  it.  Again  and  again  the 
Founder  of  Christianity  said,  ''Believe!"  There  must, 
therefore,  be  something  in  Christianity  which  it  is  necessary 
to  believe.  He  said,  '*  After  this  manner  pray  ye"  ;  '*  Do 
this  in  remembrance  of  Me  "  ;  "  Make  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions, and  baptize  them."  Thus  it  is  evident  that  prayer 
and  sacraments  are  original  and  indispensable  parts  of 
Christianity.  But  again,  nearly  all  of  our  Lord's  personal 
teaching  was  ethical ;  and,  therefore,  when  He  commanded 
His  Apostles  to  teach  their  converts  *'  all  things  whatsoever 
I  have  commanded  you,"  we  must  infer  that  the  ethical 
teaching  of  their  Master  was  to  be  the  most  prominent  part 
of  His  religion. 


iQ  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

All  this  is  plain  enough;  but  if  we  now  ask  representa- 
tives of  Christianity  to  tell  us  what  Christianity  is,  we  may 
expect  to  hear  very  different  answers.  Their  doctrines  are 
different;  one  devoutly  believes  what  another  vehemently 
denies.  Their  worship  is  different ;  one  regards  as  obliga- 
tory what  another  condemns  as  superstitious.  Only  in 
morals  do  they  all,  or  nearly  all,  agree;  but  in  morals,  too, 
they  differ  when  external  observances  are  elevated  to  the 
place  of  moral  obligations.  In  this  present  age,  then,  is  it 
possible  to  discover  what  essential  Christianity  is .?  Why 
should  it  not  be  possible .?  Students  of  physical  science 
encounter  many  such  apparent  impossibilities,  but  they  re- 
fuse to  confess  the  impossibility.  In  the  case  of  the  do- 
mestic pigeon,  for  example,  which  human  curiosity  and 
caprice  have  bred  into  such  extraordinary  varieties,  the 
naturalist  declares  that  under  every  artificial  variation  the 
original  type  of  the  common  ancestry  remains  constant. 
He  affirms  that  if  artificial  conditions  and  interferences 
were  removed,  the  domestic  varieties  would  revert  to  that 
common  and  original  type.  He  has  no  hesitation  in  pro- 
nouncing a  wood  dove,  a  carrier  pigeon  and  a  pouter 
pigeon  to  be  of  the  same  species,  nor  does  he  doubt  that 
the  wood  dove  is  nearest  to  the  original  type  of  the  species, 
while  the  carrier  has  been  produced  by  the  exceptional 
development  of  an  original  faculty,  and  the  pouter  by  the 
persistent  development  of  an  individual  deformity.  Now, 
if  we  should  apply  the  historic  method  to  the  questions 
before  us,  since  we  know  that  all  the  existing  variations  of 
Christianity  have  been  derived  from  one  and  the  same  orig- 


WIIA  T  IS  CHRISTIANITY  ?  41 

inal,  we  might  surely  expect  to  find  the  essentials  of 
Christianity  constant,  though  often  obscured,  in  each  and 
all  of  them.  In  some  we  should  discover  evidences  of 
orderly  and  normal  development,  and  again  in  others 
cultivated  eccentricities  and  deformities.  We  might  expect 
to  find  reason  to  believe  that  if  artificial  conditions  and  in- 
terferences were  removed,  if  individual,  local  and  sectarian 
pretensions  were  renounced,  and  if  the  normal  social  spirit 
of  Christianity  were  once  more  to  be  brought  into  free  and 
universal  operation,  the  mere  elimination  of  exceptional 
idiosyncrasies  would  bring  the  universal  and  essential 
elements  of  Christ's  religion  so  clearly  into  evidence  that 
they  could  not  be  mistaken.  Unfortunately  that  decisive 
experiment  cannot  be  made;  and  yet  I  believe  that,  by  a 
calm  and  rational  application  of  the  historic  method,  we 
can  nevertheless  ascertain  the  essentials  of  that  world-wide 
Christianity  which  Christ  came  to  establish,  and  which  all 
Churches,  sects  and  denominations,  calling  themselves 
Christian,  profess  to  represent.  In  this  investigation  we 
must  treat  our  subject  as  we  would  treat  any  other  subject 
of  historical  interest;  and  I  venture  to  believe  that  in  the 
degree  to  which  we  shall  honestly  and  veraciously  do  so,  to 
that  degree  will  our  conclusions  be  rationally  and  religious- 
ly satisfactory.  Let  us,  then,  for  the  moment,  lay  aside  all 
personal  prepossessions.  Let  us  forget,  if  possible,  the 
shibboleths  of  modern  denominational  Christianity.  Let  j 
us  interrogate  the  undivided  Church  of  Christ.  Let  us  in-  (^^ 
quire  of  it  what  original  Christianity  was,  and  how  it  grew 
and  what  it  became.     If  it  gives  an  answer  to  our  queries. 


42  ^ffA  T  IS  CHRISTIANITY  ? 


that   answer  will  tell  us  what  essential  Christianity  is  and 
what  modern  Christianity  ought  to  be. 

Let  me  again  remind  you  that  the  first  fact  which  strikes 
one  in  the  early  history  of  Christianity  is  its  pre-eminently 
social  character,  in  short,  the  unity  of  the  Christian  Church. 
Next  to  faith  in  Christ,  I  should  say  that  the  sense  of 
brotherhood  between  all  who  held  that  faith  was  the  most 
striking  characteristic  of  the  first  disciples.  No  man 
among  them  seemed  to  think  that  anything  he  had  was 
really  his  own  so  long  as  any  other  brother  was  in  need. 
In  matters  temporal,  as  in  matters  spiritual,  they  were  all 
of  one  heart  and  of  one  mind.  Yet,  when  we  examine  into 
details,  we  find  that  their  hopes  and  sympathies  were  very 
much  narrower  at  first  than  one  would  expect  from  the 
teaching  of  their  Master.  He  had  told  His  apostles  that 
they  were  to  "go  into  all  the  world,"  to  *'  preach  the  gos- 
pel to  every  creature,"  to  ''make  disciples  of  all  nations," 
and  to  "baptize  all  nations  "in  His  Name.  Yet,  for  seven 
years  at  least,  and  possibly  for  eleven  years,  after  His  as- 
cension, the  disciples  seem  never  to  have  thought  of  the 
plain  meaning  of  those  commands.  They  remained,  as 
He  had  bid  them  remain,  at  Jerusalem,  teaching  and 
preaching  to  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  who  thronged 
yearly  to  the  Holy  City,  and  so  completely  were  they 
absorbed  in  that  work  that  they  do  not  seem  so  much  as  to 
have  thought  of  the  greater  work  to  which  they  were 
ordained.  True,  some  of  them  did  follow  the  example  of 
Jesus  by  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  circumcised  Samari- 
tans who  professed   allegiance  to  the  law  of  Moses,  and 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  43 

there  is  one  solitary  instance  of  the  baptism  of  an  Ethio- 
pian who  may  very  likely  have  been  an  Israelite  by  blood. 
But  it  was  not  for  seven  years,  nor  then  except  as  the  result 
of  a  special  revelation,  that  the  Apostles  and  the  Apostolic 
Church  were  brought  to  understand  that  "now  to  the 
Gentiles  also  had  God  granted  repentance  unto  life." 
When  Peter  acted  on  that  belief,  his  conduct  was  at  first 
severely  blamed.  "The  Apostles  and  brethren,"  that  is, 
the  Christian  community,  came  together  to  hear  his  ac- 
count of  it,  and  it  was  only  by  the  acquiescence  of  the 
Church  that  the  matter  was  settled.  Thenceforth  and  for- 
ever it  was  recognized  as  an  elementary  principle  of  Chris- 
tianity that  it  is  an  universal  religion  for  "  all  the  world," 
and  that  no  man  may  be  excluded  from  the  Christian 
Society  on  account  of  race  distinctions. 

It  was  probably  three  years  later  that  another  most  im- 
portant matter  was  settled  in  precisely  the  same  way.  It 
was  now  understood  that  Gentiles  were  to  be  received  into 
the  Church;  but  another  point  remained  to  be  decided.  It 
is  possible,  and  it  seems  to  be  probable,  that  Cornelius,  af- 
ter his  baptism,  voluntarily  submitted  to  the  obligations 
of  the  Mosaic  law;  and  when  the  Gospel  came  to  be 
preached  at  Antioch  in  Syria,  some  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
insisted  that  unless  the  Gentile  converts  were  circumcised 
and  kept  the  law  of  Moses,  they  could  not  be  saved.  This 
was  a  vital  question.  On  its  right  decision  would  depend 
the  very  character  of  Christianity  as  a  religion.  If  the  na- 
tional law  of  Moses  was  obligatory  on  the  Christian  Gen- 
tiles, or,  in  other  words,  if  a  Gentile  must  become  a  Jew  in 


44  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

order  to  become  a  Christian,  then  Christianity  was  merely  a 
sect  of  Judaism,  like  Phariseeism  or  Sadduceeism,  and  not 
an  universal  religion  for  ''all  nations." 

It  is  interesting  to  see  how  this  great  matter  was  settled. 
In  the  first  place,  it  was  not  settled  by  the  judgment  or 
opinion  of  individuals.  Personal  opinion  and  personal  feel- 
ing seem  to  have  run  high;  for  there  was  ''no  small  dis- 
sension and  disputation,"  which  not  even  the  authority  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas  availed  to  terminate.  Neither,  in  the 
next  place,  was  it  settled  by  local  authority.  The  sacred 
story  shows  that  the  Church  in  Antioch  was  heartily  agreed 
with  Barnabas  and  Paul;  but  this  was  a  matter  which  con- 
cerned the  whole  Christian  Community,  and  therefore  it  was 
loyally  submitted  to  the  united  judgment  of  the  Apostles, 
Elders  and  Brethren  at  Jerusalem,  including  the  immediate 
followers  of  Christ,  and  in  all  probability  members  of  all 
the  Christian  Churches.  So,  "the  Apostles,  Elders  and 
Brethren  came  together  (with  the  representatives  sent  from 
Antioch)  for  to  consider  of  this  matter;  "  and  again  we  find 
that  no  merely  personal  or  individual  judgment  was  deci- 
sive. There  was  "much  disputing"  to  begin  with;  but 
nothing  came  of  it.  Then  St.  Peter  reminded  them  of  the 
adjudicated  case  of  Cornelius,  and  insisted  that  it  covered 
the  case  before  them.  This  was  a  strong  point;  and  if  Cor- 
nelius had  not  conformed  to  the  Mosaic  law,  it  was  a  de- 
cisive point.  But  it  does  not  seem  to  have  settled  the  ques- 
tion at  issue,  though  it  secured  a  quiet  hearing  to  Barnabas 
and  Paul  while  they  told  the  signs  of  divine  approval  which 
had  accompanied  their  work  at  Antioch.     Then  St.  James 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY ?  45 

the  Just,  who  seems  to  have  presided  in  the  council  as 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  summed  up  the  case  and  declared  his 
judgment  against  requiring  Gentile  Christians  to  conform  to 
Judaism.  It  was  only  after  all  these  deliberations  that  "it 
pleased  the  Apostles  and  Elders,  with  the  whole  Church," 
to  send  messengers  to  Antioch  with  a  letter  in  which  they 
said  that  the  judgment  of  St.  James  had  ''seemed  good  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  them."  That  judgment  was  ac- 
cepted and  obeyed  at  Antioch  and  in  all  Christian  Churches 
everywhere;  and  so  it  became,  or  rather,  it  was  admitted  to 
be,  a  fundamental  article  of  the  constitution  of  organized 
Christianity. 

This  rational  and  orderly  way  of  settling  matters  of  com- 
mon concern  by  common  consent  was  the  way  of  wisdom, 
peace  and  unity  in  the  infant  Church.  It  contained  some- 
thing more  than  the  germ  principle  of  constitutional  parlia- 
mentary government;  but  it  would  have  been  inconsistent 
with  the  principle  of  federative  government,  which  is  essen- 
tial to  a  world-wide  community,  if  it  had  interfered  with 
the  free  control  of  local  affairs  by  local  authorities.  That  the 
Christian  Commonwealth  from  the  very  first  admitted  and 
acted  on  both  of  these  essential  principles  is  the  fact  which 
I  shall  next  endeavor  to  show. 

It  is  often  said  that  the  Apostolic  Church  had  no  Creed, 
no  Bible  and  no  Liturgy,  and  it  is  sometimes  confidently 
assumed  that  it  was  a  great  advantage  to  the  Apostolic 
Church  that  it  had  none  of  these  three  things.  Well,  the 
statement  is  not  true.  The  Apostolic  Church  had  a  Creed, 
it  had  a  Bible  and  it  had  a  Liturgy.     It  is  perfectly  true  that 


46  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY ? 

the  Creed,  the  Bible  and  the  Liturgy  of  the  Apostolic 
Church  were  all  in  a  state  of  growth;  and  no  doubt,  the 
Divine  law  of  growth,  which  brings  first  the  blade,  then 
the  ear,  and  after  these  the  full  corn  in  the  ear,  has  its  ad- 
vantages at  every  stage,  if  we  could  only  know  what  they 
are.  It  is  all  for  good  that  an  unconscious  babyhood  pre- 
cedes the  prattling  infancy  which  insensibly  passes  into 
youth  and  grows  into  perfect  maturity  of  human  life  ;  yet  it 
is  not  in  the  beginnings  but  in  the  completion  of  growth 
that  perfection  is  reached.  So,  in  the  infant  Church  of 
the  Apostolic  age,  there  is  a  lesson  to  be  learned  in  the  art 
of  planting  infant  Churches,  which  it  would  be  well  for  the 
Church  and  the  world  if  missionaries  to  the  heathen 
studied  somewhat  more  closely  than  they  do;  but  unless 
it  is  desirable  for  men  or  Churches  to  remain  forever  in  a 
state  of  infancy,  we  must  study  not  only  what  the  infant 
Church  was,  but  how  it  grew,  and  what,  under  God's 
promised  guidance,  it  became.  In  respect  of  the  three 
matters  mentioned  it  is  not  difficult  to  do  so. 

The  Church  of  the  Apostles  had  certainly  a  Creed.  Un- 
less Baptism  meant  nothing  definite,  the  baptized  must 
have  confessed  their  faith  in  the  Father,  and  in  the  Son,  and 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,  into  whose  Name  they  were  baptized  by 
Christ's  command.  That  brief  formula  is  the  essential  sub- 
stance of  all  true  Christian  Creeds.  In  the  unchangeable 
formula  of  Holy  Baptism,  says  Dorner,  "  the  treasures  of 
immediate  faith  are  gathered  up  mto  a  sentence,  though  not 
yet  formulated  into  a  doctrine."  This  is  well  said;  but  the 
doctrine  is  in  the  sentence;  and  to  intelligent  human  beings 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  47 

some  brief  outline  of  the  meaning  of  the  doctrine  must  al- 
ways have  been  indispensable. 

Naturally  the  teaching  of  that  doctrine  would  begin  with 
some  brief  account  of  the  life  of  Him  who  is  the  Author  and 
Finisher  of  the  Christian  Faith ;  and  I,  for  one,  am  deeply 
and  unalterably  convinced  that,  long  before  the  date  of  any 
of  the  Four  Gospels  as  we  now  have  them,  there  was  a 
shorter  elementary  gospel  which  was  afterwards  made  the 
basis  of  the  three  synoptic  Gospels.  I  can  not  here  enter 
fully  into  the  argument  for  this  belief;  permit  me,  however, 
to  give  it  in  very  brief  outline. 

In  the  first  place,  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  that 
the  numerous  converts  from  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world 
who  were  baptized  at  Jerusalem  in  the  early  days  of  the 
Church  should  desire  to  carry  with  them  to  their  homes 
some  brief  authentic  account  of  the  Divine  Life  which  is 
the  essence  of  the  Gospel  ;  and  nothing  could  be  more  nat- 
ural than  that  the  Disciples  who  were  the  companions  and 
chosen  witnesses  of  that  Life,  should  be  willing  to  gratify 
that  desire.  The  evidence  that  this  was  done  seems  to  me 
to  be  overwhelming.  The  student  of  Shakspeare  finds  lit- 
tle difficulty  in  tracing  the  origin  of  his  plays  in  tales  and 
histories  which  are  yet  extant.  Now,  if  it  were  to  be  found 
that  Shakspeare  and  two  other  poets  continually  used  the 
same  language,  word  for  word,  and  sometimes  line  for 
line,  or  even  paragraph  for  paragraph,  only  one  of  two  in- 
ferences would  be  possible  :  Either  two  of  them  must 
have  copied  from  the  third  ;  or  else  all  three  must  have 
copied   from   some   other   writer.      That  is   precisely  the 


48  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

fact  to  be  accounted  for  in  the  three  synoptic  Gospels.  To 
such  an  extent  is  their  language  identical  that  if  we  strike 
out  of  each  of  the  three  every  word  and  syllable  that  is  not 
contained  in  both  of  the  other  two,  there  actually  remains 
in  each  an  intelligible  life  of  Christ,  with  all  its  most  re- 
markable incidents.  Now,  a  bare  inspection  of  these  three 
Gospels  proves  that  no  one  of  the  three  is  an  enlargement 
or  abridgement  of  the  other;  and  an  examination  of  their 
parallel  passages  shows  that  in  many  cases  two  of  the  three 
have  identical  words,  phrases  and  sentences,  while  the  third 
has  either  no  corresponding  passage  or  else  tells  the  story 
in  different  language,  and  with  some  variation  of  detail. 

What  conclusion  can  we  draw  from  these  facts  but  this, 
that  all  three  of  these  evangelists  had  before  them  an  earlier 
and  briefer  Gospel,  which  each  of  them  substantially 
adopted,  but  to  which  each  of  them  made  such  additions 
from  other  authentic  sources  as  were  necessary  to  complete 
it  for  the  purpose  he  had  personally  in  hand  }  No  other 
conclusion  seems  to  me  to  be  possible.  If  it  is  correct, 
then  we  may  suppose  that  the  synoptic  Gospels,  as  they 
were  written,  would  speedily  take  the  place  of  the  original 
and  briefer  Gospel,  as  later  editions  of  any  work  invariably 
take  the  place  of  earlier  and  less  perfect  editions;  and  when, 
after  a  still  longer  time,  the  Churches  all  the  world  over 
came  to  possess  all  three  of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  and  also 
the  later  Gospel  of  St.  John,  the  original  elementary  Gospel 
would  quite  naturally  pass  out  of  sight. 

It  is  an  assumption,  then,  and  a  false  assumption,  to  say 
that  there  was  no  Bible  in  the  infant  Church.     There  was 


WHA  T  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  49 

the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  we  have  now  seen 
that,  in  all  probability,  there  was  at  least  a  brief  Gospel  of 
undoubted  apostolical  authority  not  long  after  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  As  the  years  passed,  the  Four  canonical  Gos- 
pels were  composed  or  compiled,  the  Epistles  were  written, 
and  at  last  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  completed  the  New 
Testament  as  we  now  have  it.  But  here  another  fact  ap- 
pears, which  must  not  be  overlooked.  There  were  two 
editions  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  original  Hebrew  and  the 
Septuagint  Greek,  and  these  two  were  by  no  means  identi- 
cal, since  they  differed  in  many  particulars,  and  the  Septu- 
agint contained  whole  Books  which  were  lacking  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible.  Then,  in  the  formation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, we  learn  from  St.  Luke  that  "many  had  taken  in 
hand  "  to  write  Gospels,  and  some  of  those  Gospels  were 
anything  but  trustworthy.  There  were  epistles,  too,  which 
are  still  extant,  from  the  Apostle  Barnabas  and  from  St. 
Clement  of  Rome,  which  were  regarded  by  many  as  of 
apostolical  authority,  and  which  were  long  read  in  public 
worship,  while  in  many  Churches  the  so-called  "Catholic 
Epistles"  of  James,  Peter,  John  and  Jude  were  not  read  at 
all.  We  have  therefore  to  ask  how  "the  canon"  of  the 
Scriptures,  Old  and  New,  was  settled  in  the  Christian 
Church. 

In  one  sense  of  the  word  it  never  has  been  authoritatively 
settled  for  the  whole  Christian  Community.  But  so  far  as 
it  has  been  settled,  it  has  invariably  been  settled  in  one 
way,  namely,  by  common  consent.  The  first  list  of  the 
Books  of  Scripture  which  has  come  down  to  us  was  made 


50  WHA T  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 


at  the  Council  of  Laodicea  in  the  fourth  century.  It  is 
not  the  same  as  any  list  of  canonical  Books  now  accepted 
in  any  Christian  Church.  It  admits  some  of  the  Apocry-  . 
phal  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  excludes,  or 
rather,  it  does  not  mention,  the  Apocalypse.  Other  later 
lists  differ  more  or  less  from  the  Laodicean  list  and  from 
each  other,  and  so  they  continued  to  do  in  different 
Churches,  and  at  different  times  even  in  the  same  Church. 
The  Canon  of  the  Church  of  Rome  was  not  finally  settled 
until  the  Council  of  Trent,  A.  D.  1546.  The  Canon  of 
the  Church  of  England  was  settled  in  1553.  The  Canon 
of  the  Greek  Church  continued  for  many  centuries  to  retain 
two  Epistles  of  St.  Clement,  and  it  was  not  until  1672  that 
a  Council  at  Jerusalem  adopted  the  Canon  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  Notwithstanding  these  differences,  and  they 
were  both  numerous  and  apparently  capricious,  there  never 
was  any  dissension  among  Christians  on  the  subject.  The 
word  "canonical"  shows  how  the  matter  was  regarded. 
Different  Provinces  settled  for  themselves  the  Books  which 
ought  to  be  "allowed  to  be  read  in  Churches,"  and  they 
adopted  a  canon  or  rule  to  that  effect.  No  Church  ever 
pretended  to  dictate  a  canon  to  another  Church  on  that 
point.  No  General  Council  of  the  whole  Christian  Church 
ever  undertook  to  dictate  a  canon  of  Holy  Scriptures  to 
local  Churches.  The  old  theologians  held  that  "the  au- 
thority of  Holy  Scripture  is  from  God  alone,"  not,  as  is 
I  sometimes  foolishly  said,  from  the  Church;  and  therefore 
'  the  acceptance  of  particular  Scriptures  has  always  been  left 
to  the  free  action  of  particular  Churches,  according  to  the 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  51 

'  f'(h^r 

light  which  they  have  severally  had.     The  end  is  a  substan-  ^^    , 

tial  agreement  of  all  Churches. 

Let  us  now  see  how  liturgical  arrangements  grew  in  the 
Apostolic  Church.  So  long  as  the  temple  stood,  the  Chris- 
tians of  Jewish  birth  continued  to  observe  and  join  in  its 
appointed  services,  though  they  did  not  fail  to  assemble 
together  for  Christian  worship.  The  Gentile  converts,  as 
we  have  seen,  were  not  required  to  conform  to  Jewish  us- 
ages; and  after  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  Jewish  Chris- 
tians also  were  freed  from  an  obligation  which  even  they 
had  long  felt  to  be  burdensome.  But  they  were  not  there- 
fore released,  nor  did  they  wish  to  be  released,  from  the 
duty  of  public  worship;  and  they  were  not  destitute  of  a 
seemly  ritual.  The  forms  of  the  synagogue,  which  had  \  \^ 
been  sanctioned  by  the  personal  use  of  Christ  Himself,  '^ 
were  familiar  and  acceptable  to  all  the  Jewish  Christians. 
It  was  the  invariable  custom  of  the  Apostles,  wherever  they 
went  preaching  the  Gospel,  to  deliver  their  message  first  of 
all  to  their  brethren  after  the  flesh;  and  this  they  usually 
did  at  the  Sabbath  services  of  the  synagogues  and  oratories 
which  were  to  be  found  in  all  cities  and  towns  of  impor- 
tance. When  the  Christians  were  reluctantly  compelled,  as 
at  Corinth,  to  quit  the  synagogues  and  to  establish  sepa- 
rate congregations  of  their  own,  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  they  abandoned  the  edifying  order  of  worship  to 
which  they  were  accustomed,  or  that  they  had  any  difficulty 
in  adding  to  it  the  sacramental  worship  of  their  new  faith. 
Such,  in  fact,  appears  to  have  been  the  usual  course;  and 
experts  in  liturgies,  like  the  late  Dr.  Freeman,  are  able  to 


52  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

trace  the  origins  of  the  daily  services  of  our  EngHsh  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  back  through  the  breviaries  of  the  mid- 
dle ages  to  their  fountain  head  in  the  Eighteen  Prayers  of 
the  Synagogue.  All  this,  however,  was  left  to  take  its  nat- 
ural course  as  times  and  occasions  and  the  edification  of 
different  communities  required.  There  was  no  command- 
ment of  the  Apostles  on  the  subject. 

Even  in  the  celebration  of  sacraments  no  nicety  of  litur- 
gical arrangement  was  prescribed  by  the  Apostles;,  and  in 
this,  as  there  was  no  old  order  by  which  to  be  guided,  it  is 
not  strange  that  there  were  instances  of  gross  irregularity. 
In  the  instructive  case  of  Corinth,  for  example,  it  is  as  cer- 
tain as  it  is  astonishing  that,  after  enjoying  the  continuous 
personal  ministrations  of  an  Apostle  for  eighteen  months, 
the  Corinthian  Christians  still  regarded  the  Lord's  Supper 
as  a  social  meal,  and  that  some  of  them,  in  celebrating 
what  they  supposed  to  be  the  Lord's  Supper,  -behaved  with 
unbrotherly  selfishness,  and  indulged  their  appetites  to 
drunkenness.  It  was  after  they  had  fallen  into  this  enor- 
mous and  incredible  error  that  the  Apostle  wrote  to  instruct 
them  in  the  nature  of  the  sacrament  and  the  indispensable 
formula  required  in  its  celebration.  It  is  probable  that  he 
subsequently  prescribed  the  order  of  a  fuller  Liturgy;  for, 
in  his  epistle,  after  he  had  given  them  the  indispensable 
formula  of  the  "canon,"  he  added,  "  The  rest  will  I  set  in 
order  when  I  come."  There  are  not  a  few  interesting  evi- 
dences of  the  existence  of  noble  sacramental  Liturgies  in 
the  Apostolic  Church;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Lit- 
urgies of  all  the  Apostolic  Churches  were  the  same.     If  we 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY ?  53 


are  to  judge  from  later  developments,  various  Liturgical 
types  must  have  begun  to  appear  at  a  very  early  period,  in 
all  of  which  the  indispensable  formula  was  religiously  re- 
tained, while  subordinate  and  accessory  details  were  added 
and  altered  in  accordance  with  the  tastes  and  tendencies  of 
local  Churches.  Nowhere  was  the  essential  part  omitted  or 
mutilated;  and  nowhere  was  it  supposed  that  any  other 
part  was  to  be  prescribed  to  local  Churches  by  any  external 
authority.  Thus,  in  the  Primitive  Church,  the  utmost  free- 
dom of  local  action  was  experimentally  proved  to  secure, 
rather  than  to  endanger,  the  essentials  of  a  right  celebration 
of  Christian  worship. 

The  early  Liturgies  afford  the  best  imaginable  proof  of 
the  continued  purity  of  doctrine  in  the  Churches  of  the  first 
three  centuries;  because  religious  worship  always  corre- 
sponds to  religious  belief,  and  if  the  belief  of  the  early 
Christians  had  been  depraved  during  those  ages  of  persecu- 
tion, the  change  would  surely  have  left  its  mark  on  their 
Liturgies.  Consequently  when  we  find  that  the  various  lit- 
urgies, with  whatever  difference  of  local  form,  remained 
substantially  the  same  in  doctrine,  we  are  entitled  to  infer 
that  the  one  faith,  which  was  once  delivered  to  all,  had 
been  kept  by  all  in  its  original  purity.  It  is  improbable,  to 
say  the  least,  that  this  would  have  happened  if  the  widely 
separated  Churches  of  India,  Persia,  Asia  Minor,  Syria, 
Greece,  Northern  Africa,  Italy,  Gaul,  and  Britain  had  not 
been  at  pains  to  discriminate  and  emphasize  the  essential  el- 
ements of  their  common  faith.  It  is  therefore  intrinsically 
probable  that,  from  the  earliest  times  all  Christian  Churches 


54  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

must  have  had  brief  summaries  of  the  Christian  faith  which 
we  should  now  call  creeds.  It  is  probable,  too,  that  can- 
didates for  Baptism  would  be  required  to  make  their  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  some  satisfactory  way  before  the  Church, 
and  since  most  candidates  were  illiterate  persons  who  could 
not  be  expected  to  do  so  in  terms  of  their  own  choosing,  it 
would  be  natural  that  a  brief  summary  should  be  provided 
for  them. 

Such,  undoubtedly,  is  the  historical  fact.  There  are  some 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  Apostles  themselves  set  forth 
such  summaries.  Thus  St..  Paul  bids  Timothy  '*  Hold  fast 
the  form  of  sound  words  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me,"  and 
elsewhere  he  speaks  of  ''  that  good  thing  which  was  com- 
mitted unto  thee."  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  "the 
form  of  sound  words  "  which  Timothy  had  heard  from  St. 
Paul  was  the  "good  thing"  he  was  exhorted  to  hold  fast; 
and  unless  it  was  a  liturgy,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  what  it 
could  be  unless  it  was  a  Creed.  I  am  inclined,  however,  to 
believe  that  it  was  a  liturgy,  or  some  part  of  a  liturgy; 
because,  if  it  had  been  a  Creed,  it  would  surely  have  been 
preserved  and  regarded  as  an  indispensable  formula  by  all 
the  Churches  to  which  it  was  communicated.  Now,  the 
strange  thing  is  that,  for  four  centuries,  while  brief  creeds 
or  confessions  of  the  essentials  of  Christian  faith  seem  to 
have  been  in  almost  or  quite  universal  use  in  all  Churches, 
no  particular  form  was  considered  essential  or  immutabl€^ 
Some  were  longer,  and  some  were  shorter.  At  Carthage,  for 
instance,  the  candidate  for  Baptism,  in  answer  to  the 
question,    "Dost   thou   believe  ? ''   answered   simply:    "I 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  55 

believe  in  God  the  Father,  in  His  Son  Christ  (and)  in  the 
Holy  Ghost;  I  believe  (in)  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  eternal  C^ 
life  through  the  holy  Church.''  In  Western  Churches,  the  ^^ 
baptismal  creeds  were  fuller,  and  gradually  approximated  to 
the  form  which  is  now  called  the  Apostles'  Creed.  In 
Oriental  Churches,  if  we  may  at  all  trust  the  so-called 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  the  form  of  the  baptismal  creeds 
must  have  been  fuller  than  at  the  West,  and  must  more 
nearly  have  resembled  that  which  is  now  popularly  called 
the  Nicene  Creed.  Here,  once  more,  we  find  local  liberty 
in  matters  of  form  together  with  substantial  unity  and  con- 
sent in  all  essentials. 

I  must  now  ask  you  to  follow  me  in  an  examination  of 
one  of  the  most  interesting  series  of  events  in  the  history  of 
Christianity.  By  those  events  it  has  commonly  been  sup- 
posed that  the  former  freedom  of  the  Christian  Churches  was 
notably  abridged;  but  I  hope  to  show  you  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  was  solemnly  confirmed  and  resolutely  protected  as 
a  constitutional  and  inalienable  right;  and,  as  one  result  of 
our  investigation,  I  trust  that  you  will  clearly  see  what  are 
the  genuine  doctrinal  essentials  of  the  Christian  faith.  I 
shall  have  no  occasion  to  make  any  assertion  that  will  be 
disputed  by  any  competent  scholar;  and  if  I  am  so  fortunate 
as  to  make  my  statement  of  the  facts  sufficiently  simple,  I 
believe  that  the  inferences  and  conclusions  to  be  drawn 
from  them  will  require  no  argument. 

The  unity  of  consent  in  all  matters  of  importance  which 
prevailed  throughout  the  Christian  Church  of  the  first  three 
centuries   was   maintained,   by  the  simple  and  reasonable 


56  WHA  T  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

method  of  frequent  consultation.  Whenever  any  question 
of  difficulty  arose,  the  parties  immediately  interested  con- 
ferred together,  and  if  the  matter  was  of  general  concern, 
they  communicated  their  conclusion  to  neighboring 
Churches.  In  cases  of  peculiar  difficulty  advice  was  sought 
from  other  Churches  until  a  satisfactory  solution  was 
reached.  So  universal  and  so  strong  was  the  social  bond 
which  united  the  primitive  Churches,  so  intimate  was  their 
knowledge  of  each  others'  affairs,  and  so  closely  were  the 
decisions  of  local  Churches  observed  and  followed  by  other 
local  Churches,  that  a  fairly  complete  code  of  canons  had 
come  into  existence,  and  had  been  generally  accepted,  before 
a  single  General  Council  of  all  the  Churches  of  Christendom 
had  ever  been  practically  thought  of.  When  questions  of 
faith  arose,  as  they  did  too  often  arise,  they  were  always 
decided  in  the  same  way.  Most  of  the  proposed  doctrines 
were  mere  innovations,  which  the  common  sense  of  all  the 
Churches  rejected;  and  in  that  case  the  innovators  either 
submitted  to  the  common  judgment  or  withdrew  from  the 
common  assembly  of  the  faithful.  Sometimes  the  innovators 
obstinately  denied  some  article  of  the  faith  and  were  there- 
upon expelled  from  the  Church.  When  differences  arose  on 
matters  of  discipline  between  brethren  who  were  one  in  faith, 
other  Churches  were  consulted,  and  the  common  judgment 
was  decisive.  Everywhere  the  rule  was  the  same:  a  man 
who  held  the  common  faith  and  remained  in  communion 
with  the  universal  body  of  the  faithful  was  everywhere 
recognized  as  a  member  of  the  one  universal  or  catholic 
Church;  all   who   departed  from  the  universal  faith,   who 


IVHA  T  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  57 


rejected  the  discipline  which  the  universal  judgment 
approved,  or  who  withdrew  from  the  communion  of  other 
Christians,  thereby  cut  themselves  off  from  the  Catholic 
Church. 

At  first  there  were  no  appointed  times  nor  prescribed  dis- 
tricts within  which  the  Bishops  of  adjacent  local  Churches 
were  expected  or  required  to  meet  together  for  consulta- 
tion. Soon,  however,  these  matters  of  orderly  procedure 
were  arranged.  Two  of  the  oldest  canons  in  existence 
direct  that  the  Bishops  of  every  "nation"  are  to  have  a 
chief  of  their  own  order  with  whom  they  are  to  act  on  all 
occasions,  and  that  their  regular  meetings  for  business  are 
to  be  held  shortly  after  Easter  and  again  in  the  month  of 
October  every  year.  For  a  long  time  the  Roman  provinces 
generally  coincided  with  the  nations  conquered  by  the 
Roman  arms;  but  when  those  national  provinces  were 
divided  into  smaller  provinces,  as  they  frequently  were,  the 
Church  arrangements  followed  the  new  order.  Thus  pro- 
vincial councils  gradually  took  the  place  of  national  coun- 
cils; but  no  Ecumenical  or  General  Council  of  the  whole 
Christian  Church  was  ever  proposed,  or  was  ever  possible, 
until  after  the  battle  of  Adrianople  in  323  when  Constantine 
the  Great,  who  had  become  Emperor  of  the  West  in  312, 
defeated  the  persecuting  tyrant  Licinius,  and  so  became  the 
undisputed  master  of  the  whole  Roman  Empire.  Several 
years  before  this  event  bitter  controversies  which  had  arisen 
in  Alexandria  in  connection  with  the  new  doctrines  of  Arius 
had  been  spreading  elsewhere.  For  the  first  time  in  its  his- 
tory the  Christian  Church  was  threatened  with    general  and 


58  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 


chronic  discord;  and  then,  as  on  all  lesser  occasions,  con- 
sultation became  necessary  in  order  that  the  common  judg- 
ment of  the  Church  might  be  ascertained  and  delivered.  In 
325  the  great  Council  ofNicaea  was  assembled  by  command 
of  Constantine.  It  consisted  of  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
representatives  of  the  Churches  of  Christendom,  from  Britain 
to  the  furthest  East,  many  of  whom  still  bore  in  their  bodies 
scars  and  mutilations  which  certified  their  fidelity  to  the 
Christian  faith  in  times  of  savage  persecution.  The  Council 
of  Nicaea  was  the  first  representative  imperial  parliament 
that  the  world  had  ever  seen.  Every  member  of  it  had 
been  chosen  to  his  office  by  the  suffrage  of  the  Christian 
community  over  which  he  presided;  every  one  of  them  was 
a  sworn  maintainer  of  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
Church;  and  they  were  called  together  to  consult  for  the 
well-being  of  the  Christian  Commonwealth  throughout  the 
Roman  Empire,  that  is,  throughout  the  civilized  world. 

Now,  observe  that  they  were  not  there  to  proclaim  a  new 
doctrine,  but  to  give  their  testimony  on  these  two  questions 
of  fact: — first,  whether  the  doctrine  of  Arius  was,  or  was 
not,  the  doctrine  they  themselves  had  received  as  the 
doctrine  of  Christianity;  and  second,  whether  it  was  con- 
sistent with  the  doctrine  they  had  received.  On  the  first  of 
these  questions  the  testimony  was  unanimous.  No  one, 
even  on  the  Arian  side,  pretended  that  the  doctrine  of  Arius 
had  been  explicitly  delivered  to  the  Church  by  Christ  or 
His  Apostles.  It  was  admitted  to  be  a  novelty;  the  argu- 
ment in  its  favor  was  purely  philosophical;  and  conse- 
quently, the  true  question  before   the  council  was  whether 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  59 

the  new  philosophical  doctrine  of  Arius  was  consistent  with 
the  established  and  universal  doctrine  of  the  Church.  The 
testimony  of  an  immense  majority  of  the  Bishops  was  to 
the  contrary.  A  brief  Declaration  of  certain  articles  of  the 
universal  Christian  Faith  was  prepared  and  published  in  the 
name  of  the  Council;  and,  appended  to  that  Declaration, 
was  a  formal  condemnation  of  the  Arian  doctrines  which 
the  Council  pronounced  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
Christian  Faith.  The  Nicene  Declaration  and  its  appended 
Judgment  were  as  follows  : 

*'We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father,  Almighty,  Maker 
of  all  things  visible  and  invisible: 

''And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  Be- 
gotten of  the  Father,  Only  Begotten,  that  is,  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father;  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  Very 
God  of  Very^  God,  Begotten,  not  made,  Being  of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father;  By  Whom  all  things  were  made, 
both  those  in  heaven  and  those  in  earth;  Who,  for  us  men 
and  for  our  salvation,  came  down,  and  was  incarnate,  and 
was  made  Man,  suffered,  and  rose  again  the  third  day, 
ascended  into  heaven  and  cometh  again  to  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead: 

''And  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  But  them  that  say  that  there  was  (a  time)  when  He  was 
not;  and  that  before  He  was  begotten  He  was  not;  and 
that  He  was  made  of  things  which  are  not;  or  who  say  that 
the  Son  of  God  is  of  a  different  substance  or  essence;  or 
that  He  is  subject  to  conversion  or  mutation;  these  the 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  anathematizes." 


60  WITA  T  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

In  connection  v.ith  this  Solemn  Declaration  and  Judg- 
ment we  must  make  three  weighty  observations. 

The  first  is  that  it  was  made  reluctantly.  If  we  mspect 
it,  we  find  that  it  declares  the  faith  of  the  members  of  the 
Council  concerning  only  two  of  the  three  articles  of  the 
formula  of  Baptism,  ''In  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Of  the  Father  it  says 
only  enough  to  deny  with  emphasis  the  opinion  of  certain 
heretics  who  imagined  that  God  is  not  the  maker  of  the 
visible  creation  as  well  as  of  the  invisible  world  of  spirits.  Of 
the  Son  it  speaks  more  fully,  so  as  to  show  the  positive 
belief  with  which  the  heresy  of  Arius  was  inconsistent.  Of 
the  Holy  Ghost  it  says  not  one  word  beyond  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  its  Being.  After  that,  the  phrases  in  which  the 
false  doctrine  of  Arius  was  expressed,  are  solemnly  con- 
demned as  manifestly  inconsistent  with  the  Christian  Faith. 
With  that  condemnation  the  Council  stopped.  It  had  done 
the  duty  to  which  Divine  Providence  had  called  it,  and 
having  faithfully  done  that  duty,  it  did  no  more.  Very 
clearly  the  fathers  of  Nicaea  were  not  anxious  to  engage 
in  extensive  definitions  of  doctrine.  Even  in  doing  what 
they  did,  they  acted  reluctantly.  As  in  the  first  Council  at 
Jerusalem,  there  was  ''much  disputing"  among  them. 
Some  were  utterly  opposed  to  defining  anything  whatever  ; 
others  strongly  objected  to  the  crucial  phrase  "  of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father/'  and  all  of  those  who  objected  to 
it  were  not  by  any  means  disciples  of  Arius.  That  identi- 
cal phrase  had  been  used  some  time  before  to  express  a 
view  of  the  relation  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  which  was 


WHA  T  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  61 

as  erroneous  in  one  way  as  the  doctrine  of  Arius  was  in 
another,  and  its  introduction  was  therefore  extremely  dis- 
tasteful to  many  thoroughly  faithful  men.  Still,  after  full 
discussion,  it  was  agreed  that  the  language  of  the  Declara- 
tion, in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  used  by  the  Council,  did 
fairly  and  faithfully  express  the  common  faith  of  all  the 
Churches  of  Christ,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  Arius,  being 
inconsistent  with  that  common  faith,  must  be  condemned. 

We  must  next  observe  that  nobody  supposed  the  Decla- 
ration to  be  infallibly  true,  merely  because  a  great  and 
venerable  Ecumenical  Council  had  adopted  it.  The  1 
superstitious  notion  that  Councils  of  the  Church — even  j 
Ecumenical  Councils — are  infallible,  had  not  then  been 
thought  of  Even  in  the  Council  of  Nicaea  there  were  men 
who  did  little  honor  to  their  office.  There  were  trimmers 
who  were  ready  to  take  either  side,  if  it  seemed  more  likely 
than  the  other  to  promote  their  profit  or  advancement. 
There  were  unscrupulous  politicians  whose  views  of  the- 
ology were  reflections  of  the  views  of  the  imperial  court, 
and  not  of  the  true  faith  of  their  respective  Churches. 
There  were  timid  men,  and  there  were  ''moderate"  men, 
with  a  constitutional  inclination  to  compromise,  even  in 
cases  in  which  the  pretence  of  compromise  only  covers  a  [| 
surrender.  There  were  men,  too,  who  honestly  feared  that 
the  new  declaration,  and  especially  its  crucial  phrase, 
would  give  great  and  just  offence.  And  then,  among  the 
most  heroic  of  the  Bishops  present,  there  were  some  who 
had  no  more  notion  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  *'  of  one 
substance  with  Father  "  than  the  majority— I  speak  with  all 


// 


62  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

due  respect — of  those  whom  I  am  new  addressing.  How 
should  the  decision  of  such  a  matter  by  such  an  assembly 
be  regarded  as  infallibly  true  ?  Nobody  in  those  days  pre- 
tended that  it  was  infallibly  true.  How  then  was  its  truth 
to  be  tested  ? 

In  the  old  way,  which  was  also  the  simplest  way  in  the 
world,  namely  by  the  general  judgment  of  the  Churches  of 
Christ  all  the  world  over.  But  let  us  distinguish.  Rightly 
stated,  the  question  to  be  decided  by  all  the  Churches  was 
not  whether  the  Nicene  Declaration  was  true,  but  whether 
it  was  Christian;  that  is  to  say,  whether  it  did  really  and 
truly  set  forth  the  faith  which  all  Christian  Churches  had 
received  at  the  beginning  and  had  held  from  the  beginning. 
To  that  question  the  answer  was  unequivocal.  No  sooner 
was  the  Nicene  Declaration  published  than  with  one  con- 
sent all  Christian  Churches  throughout  the  world  bore 
witness  that  in  all  the  particulars  to  which  it  referred,  it  was 
a  true  statement  of  the  Christian  faith  as  they  had  received 
it  and  held  it  from  the  beginning.  The  Arians  themselves 
did  not  attempt  to  contradict  the  universal  testimony,  but 
in  subsequent  controversies  professed  the  utmost  veneration 
for  the  Nicene  Council  and  entire  submission  to  the  Nicene 
Declaration. 

This  they  were  the  more  able  to  do  because,  as  we  have 
now,  in  the  third  place  to  observe,  the  Nicene  Declaration 
was  not  a  Creed.  It  was  simply  a  statement  of  certain 
truths  and  a  condemnation  of  certain  falsehoods.  It  was 
■not  set  forth  as  a  substitute  for  any  of  the  baptismal  creeds 
-svhich  were    in    use  in    different   Churches.       It    was    not 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  C3 

ordered  to  be  used  in  any  part  of  public  worship.  The 
Nicene  fathers  did  not  wish  to  mortify  the  Arians,  but  to 
win  them  to  the  truth,  nor  do  they  seem  to  have  had  any 
confidence  in  the  efficacy  of  enforced  subscriptions  to  create 
or  maintain  purity  of  doctrine,  and  therefore  their  Decla- 
ration was  not  proposed  as  a  verbal  formula  to  be  universally 
subscribed  in  the  very  language  in  which  the  Council  had 
expressed  it.  Any  man  who  held  the  faith  in  its  integrity  was 
still  at  liberty  to  express  his  faith  in  any  words  which  were 
consistent  with  the  Solemn  Declaration  of  the  Council, 
approved,  as  it  soon  was,  by  the  universal  acclamation  of 
the  Catholic  Church. 

I  must  here  suspend  our  historical  investigation  in  order 
to  resume  it  in  the  first  part  of  the  next  lecture;  but  before 
I  do  so  let  me  remark  that  in  the  setting  forth  of  the  Nicene 
Declaration  there  was  no  enlargement,  nor  even  develop- 
ment, of  the  Christian  Faith  as  it  had  been  delivered  to  the 
Churches  oi  Christ  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ.  Some  of  its 
terms  were  new;  the  meaning  of  those  terms  was  not  new; 
and  the  new  terms  had  been  made  necessary  only  to  exclude 
new  forms  of  error  which  threatened  the  old  faith. 

That  there  was  a  development  of  Christian  faith  in  the 
members  of  the  apostolic  Church  I  do  not  at  all  deny. 
When  our  Saviour  promised  His  Disciples  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  teach  them  all  things  and  bring  to  their 
remembrance  all  things  which  He  had  personally  taught 
them,  there  must  have  been  some  things  which  they  had  not 
yet  been  taught  and  other  things  which  they  had  been 
taught,  but  which  they  had  not  sufficiently  understood  and 


64  ^^A  T  IS  CHRIS  TIANITY  ? 

were  therefore  likely  to  forget.  In  the  present  lecture  we 
have  seen  how  plainly  our  Lord  had  spoken  of  the  catholicity 
of  their  apostolic  commission,  how  imperfectly  they  must 
have  understood  that  part  of  His  teaching,  how  completely 
they  forgot  it  and  how  gradually  they  were  brought  to  re- 
member it  and  to  accept  the  unforeseen  consequences  which 
were  to  attend  it.  It  was  only  bit  by  bit,  as  they  were  able 
to  bear  it,  that  their  Master's  teaching  was  recalled  to  their 
remembrance,  and  that  they  were  guided  into  new  truth 
which  they  had  been  slowly  prepared  to  receive  and  apply. 
The  new  things  which  they  were  to  be  taught  by  the 
promised  Spirit  were  none  the  less  new  to  the  Apostles  be- 
cause they  were  implied  in  other  things  which  they  had 
been  already  taught.  When  Peter  first  made  his  great  con- 
fession, "Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God/' 
he  had  little  understanding  of  the  deep  significance  of  his 
own  words.  In  his  sermon  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  in 
his  brave  speech  to  the  people  by  the  Beautiful  Gate  of  the 
Temple,  we  find  a  fuller  understanding  of  the  meaning  of 
that  confession  than  he  could  possibly  have  had  before  the 
resurrection  of  our  Saviour;  but  when  we  compare  all  that 
he  said  in  those  two  discourses  with  the  immeasurably 
larger  and  more  spiritual  apprehension  of  Christ — of  the 
Sinless  Sufferer  for  mankind,  of  the  priestly  character  of  His 
atonement,  of  the  priestly  and  princely  dignity  of  His  peo- 
ple, and  of  the  privilege  of  partaking  in  His  sufferings, 
which  is  a  sure  pledge  of  the  partaking  of  His  glory — all  of 
which  and  more  we  find  in  Peter's  First  Epistle,  welling  out 
of  the  rich  maturity  of  his  later  life,  it  is  impossible  not  to 


WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY?  g5 

see  how  many  things  this  Prince  of  the  Apostles  had  been 
taught  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ  during  the  years  which  had 
intervened. 

We  often  hear  men  say,  Give  us  the  Christianity  of  \ 
Christ  !  It  is  a  most  just  demand.  It  represents  a  lawful 
and  laudable  resentment  at  the  endless  additions  to  the 
Christianity  of  Christ  by  which  the  Gospel  has  been  ob- 
scured and  Christ  Himself  has  been  hidden  behind  a  mass 
of  vain  inventions.  By  all  means  let  us  have  the  Christian- 
ity of  Christ,  and  nothing  else  than  that.  But  let  us  have 
the  whole  of  it  1  Let  us  have  all  that  the  Apostles  remem- 
bered and  the  Evangelists  recorded;  and  then  let  us  have 
the  deep  meaning  of  it  all,  the  fulness  of  the  truth  of  it, 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  revealed  to  them.  There  is  a  true 
and  scriptural  theory,  as  well  as  a  false  and  sophistical 
theory,  of  the  development  of  Christian  doctrine.  The 
latter  is  purely  individual  and  sectarian,  and  would  justify 
any  development  which  the  misdirected  energy  of  self-will 
might  happen  to  construct;  the  former  is  catholic,  and  jus- 
tifies only  that  development  which  is  proved  to  have  been 
natural  and  normal  by  the  simple  fact  that  it  was  universal. 
When  one  recollects  these  facts; — that  the  Apostles  by 
whom  the  faith  was  propagated  were  scattered  far  asunder 
to  the  very  ends  of  the  civilized  world  and  even  among  the 
barbarians;  that  many  of  the  Churches  which  they  planted 
had  no  communication  with  each  other  for  more  than  two  "^ 
hundred  and  fifty  years;  that  within  two  years  after  it  was  '  ^' 
made  physically  and  politically  possible  for  their  representa-  - 
tives  to  meet  together,  they  did  meet  in  council  to  declare 


gg  WHAT  IS  CHRISTIANITY? 

their  several  versions  of  their  common  faith ;  and  that  those 
versions,  separately  received  and  separately  preserved  in 
communities  of  men  differing  in  race,  in  language,  in  tradi- 
tion, in  custom  and  in  civilization,  were  found  to  be  -in  all 
essential  points  identical; — when  one  remembers  these 
things,  he  must  first  be  struck,  I  think,  with  the  social  in- 
stinct and  sense  of  unity  which  brought  such  men  together, 
and  then  with  the  impossibility  that  their  common  tradition 
should  have  been  derived  from  any  other  than  one  common 
source.  Whatever  development  of  thought  we  may  imag- 
ine we  discover  in  their  phraseology  is  more  apparent  than 
real.  It  is  only  the  development  of  the  implicit  into  the 
explicit,  the  universal  and  necessary  growth  of  one  and  the 
self-same  fulness  of  truth  into  one  and  the  self-same  fitness 
of  form.  Its  necessity  is  demonstrated  by  its  universality. 
Like  springs  from  like,  and  it  grows  to  like.  ''Men  do 
not  gather  grapes  of  thorns  nor  figs  of  thistles."  The  Chris- 
tianity which  had  been  separately  received,  which  for  centu- 
ries had  been  separately  held,  and  which  was  then  set  forth 
with  one  consent  by  all  Churches  throughout  the  world,  can 
have  been  none  other  than  the  Christianity  which  was 
everywhere  delivered  by  Christ's  Apostles;  and  the  Christian- 
ity of  the  Apostles  was  the  Christianity  of  Christ. 


LECTURE   III. 
THE  CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 


LECTURE   III. 

THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

THE  NICENE  CREED  FIRST  SET  FORTH  AS  A  SUFFICIENT  AND 
UNALTERABLE  FORMULA  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  FAITH  BY  THE 
COUNCIL     OF     CHALCEDON.  ITS      UNIVERSAL      OBLIGATION. 

ITS  GUARANTEE  OF  DOCTRINAL  LIBERTY.  IT  SETS  THE 
LIMITS  OF  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETICS.  IT  EXCLUDES  THE 
POSSIBILITY  OF  CONFLICT  BETWEEN  CHRISTIANITY  AND 
SCIENCE    OR   VERACIOUS    CRITICISM. 

The  faith  which  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints, — Jude  3. 

The  Creed  represents  the  Catholic  judgment.— Rev.  Charles  Gork. 

The  best  minds  of  the  future  are  to  be  neither  religious  minds  defying 
scientific  advances  nor  scientific  minds  denying  religion,  but  minds  in 
which  religion  interprets  and  is  interpreted  by  science,  in  which  faith 
and  inquiry  subsist  together  and  reinforce  one  another. — Ibid. 

Religion  claims  as  its  own  the  new  light  which  metaphysics  and  sci- 
ence in  our  day  are  throwing  upon  the  immanence  of  God ;  it  protests  only 
against  those  imperfect,  because  premature,  syntheses  which,  in  the  inter- 
ests of  abstract  speculation,  would  destroy  religion. — Aubrey  More. 

This  much  I  may  say,  that  after  a  life,  already  not  a  short  one,  spent 
in  the  study  of  science  and  philosophical  divinity,  and  living  in  equal 
intimacy  with  men  of  science  and  with  thoughtful  divines,  I  have  learned 
nothing  which  can  reasonably  disturb  an  impartial  mind,  either  in  its 
conviction  of  the  truths  of  Christianity,  as  interpreted  by  the  more 
moderate  sections  of  the  Christian  Church,  or  in  its  acceptance  of  the 
divine  inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  not  indeed  as  literal  or 
punctual,  but  as  generic  and  substantial.  I  am  equally  assured  that  the 
general  development  of  human  knowledge  is  friendly  to  these  considera- 
tions.—Prof.  Pritchard. 
69 


70  THE  CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

Whatever  meanings  different  theologians  may  attach  to  supernatural 
rehgion,  history  teaches  us  that  nothing  is  so  natural  as  the  super- 
natural.—Max  MULLER. 

The  theory  of  evolution  is  quite  compatible  with  the  belief  in  God. — 
Charles  Darwin. 

I  cannot  for  a  moment  admit  that  the  theory  of  evolut'on  will  alter 
our  theological  views. — Professor  Jevons. 

The  doctrine  of  evolution  leaves  the  argument  for  an  intelligent  Crea- 
tor and  Governor  of  the  world  stronger  than  before. — Bishop  Temple. 

Those  who  hoped  that  molecular  science  would  help  them  to  get  rid 
of  God  have  obviously  made  a  profound  mistake.  It  has  already  shown 
far  more  clearly  than  ever  was  or  could  have  been  anticipated,  that 
every  atom  of  matter  points  back  beyond  itself  to  the  all-originating 
will  of  God.— Professor  Flint. 

So  keenly  were  the  Christians  of  the  early  period  conscious  of  the  one 
life  of  nature  as  the  evidence  of  the  Spirit,  that  it  was  a  point  of  the 
charge  against  Origen  that  his  language  seemed  to  involve  an  exclusion 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  nature,  and  a  limitation  of  His  activity  to  the 
Church.— Rev.  Charles  Gore. 

In  humanity  made  after  the  Divine  Image,  it  was  the  original  inten- 
tion of  God  that  the  Spirit  should  find  His  chiefest  joy. — Ibid. 

The  belief  in  the  Huly  Scriptures  as  inspired  requires  to  be  held  in 
context  by  the  belief  in  the  general  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the 
Christian  Society  and  the  individual  soul.  It  is,  we  may  perhaps  say, 
becoming  more  and  more  difficult  to  believe  in  the  Bible  without  believ- 

ing  in  the  Church The  apostolic  writings  were  written  as 

occasion  required,  within  the  Church  and  for  the  Church.  They  pre- 
suppose membership  in  it  and  familiarity  with  its  tradition.  They  are 
secondary,  not  primary,  instructors;  for  edification,  not  for  initiation. 
Nor,  in  fact,  can  a  hard  and  fast  line  be  drawn  between  what  lies  within 
and  what  lies  without  the  canon. — Ibid. 

We  cannot  make  any  exact  claim  upon  any  one's  belief  in  regard  to 
Inspiration,  simply  because  we  have  no  authoritative  definition  to  bring 
to  bear  upon  him.  Those  of  us  who  believe  most  in  the  inspiration  of 
the  Church  will  see  a  divine  purpose  in  this  absence  of  dogma,  because 
we  shall  perceive  that  only  now  is  the  state  of  knowledge  such  as  admits 
of  the  question  being  legitimately  raised. — Ibid. 

If  the  Christian  Church  has  been  able  to  defeat  the  critical  attack,  so 
far  as  it  threatened  destruction  to  the  historical  basis  of  the  New  Testa- 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  71 

merit,  it  has  not  been  by  foreclosing  the  question  with  an  appeal  to 
dogma,  but  by  facing  in  fair  and  frank  discussion  the  problems  raised. 
A  similar  treatment  of  Old  Testament  problems  will  enable  us  to  distin- 
guish between  what  is  reasonable  and  reverent,  and  what  is  high-handed 
and  irreligious  in  contemporary  criticism,  whether  German,  French  or 
English. — Ibid. 

It  is  one  of  the  horrors  of  religious  controversy  that  it 
casts  out  charity.  Controversy  is  oftener  waged  for  the 
glory  of  victory  than  for  the  glory  of  God;  and  when  victory 
becomes  the  chief  aim  of  the  combatants,  the  charity  which 
thinketh  no  evil  is  forgotten,  because  it  is  necessary  to  think 
evil  and  to  say  evil  in  order  to  discredit  the  adversary.  Nay, 
the  tactics  of  controversy  are  plied  to  catch  the  adversary  in 
some  false  position,  and  even  to  drive  him  as  far  as  possible 
from  the  truth  in  order  to  prove  how  wrong  he  is.  For  the 
most  part  what  is  called  Christian  controversy  is  egregiously 
misnamed,  because,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  it  is  anything 
rather  than  Christian.  It  is  nearly  always  un-Christian;  it  is 
often  anti-Christian;  it  is  sometimes  diabolical.  What  it  is 
now  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ,  and  such 
it  was  in  the  Nicene  period.  At  the  Council  of  Nicaea, 
great  and  venerable  as  it  was,  there  was  much  controversy, 
and  not  a  little  of  the  un-Christian  spirit  of  controversy.  It 
cannot  be  said  that  the  catholics  were  all  right  and  the 
heretics  all  wrong.  As  it  often  happens  in  such  affairs,  not 
a  few  men  got  on  the  side  to  which  they  did  not  properly 
belong.  There  were  some  who  sincerely  held  the  catholic 
faith  and  yet  were  forced  at  one  time  or  another,  and  in  one 
way  or  another,  into  an  apparent  support  of  the  partisans 
of  Arius;  and  there  were  some  who  figured  as  champions  of 


72  THE  CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

orthodoxy  who  were  in  fact  nearly  or  quite  as  far  wrong  in 
one  direction  as  Arius  was  in  the  other.  The  Church  of 
England  is  largely  justified  in  holding  that  General  Councils, 
"forasmuch  as  they  be  assemblies  of  men,  whereof  all  be  not 
governed  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  may  err,  and  sometimes  have 
erred.''  The  late  Dean  Church  has  admirably  said  that  "in 
the  early  and  undivided  church  there  was  such  a  thing  as 
authority,  and  there  was  no  such  thing  known  as  infalli- 
bility." Hence  it  was  not  in  the  final  agreement  of  a  large 
majority  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea  (as  though  that  agreement 
must  needs  have  been  infallible,)  but  in  the  authoritative  ver- 
dict of  the  universal  Church,  that  the  Declaration  of  Nicsea 
found  its  true  sanction,  and  the  sufficient  testimony  that  its 
contents  were  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God  as  received  and 
held  by  all  the  Churches  of  Christ.  After  that  for  a  time, 
there  was  peace.  Those  who  had  been  right  from  the  be- 
ginning and  those  who  had  been  really  right  in  their  in- 
tentions but  who  had  been  betrayed  into  a  false  position 
at  some  part  of  the  proceedings,  adhered  to  the  Nicene 
Declaration;  those  who  had  been  really  wrong  concealed 
their  opposition  under  a  pretence  of  acquiescence.  Very 
soon  the  defeated  Arians  began  to  assail  the  faith  by  indi- 
rection. The  unrestrained  liberty  which  still  allowed  every 
Christian  Church  and  indeed  every  Christian  teacher  to 
frame  statements  of  Christian  doctrine,  provided  only 
that  they  should  not  contradict  the  Declaration  of  Nicaea, 
was  unscrupulously  used.  The  secret  favorers  of  Arianism, 
while  professing  entire  submission  to  the  Nicene  Declaration, 
introduced  forms  of  expression  which   were  really  contra- 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  73 

dictory  of  it,  and  so,  in  various  places,  insidiously  planted 
heresy,  while  professing  to  be  champions  of  catholic 
truth. 

Within  a  few  years  after  the  close  of  the  Nicene  Council 
raise  charges  were  trumped  up  against  Athanasius,  the 
champion  of  the  faith;  and  although  they  were  completely 
disproved  in  a  council  held  at  Tyre,  A.  D.  335,  the  Arian 
sympathizers,  finding  themselves,  to  their  surprise,  in  a 
majority,  deposed  him  from  his  archbishopric,  and  banished 
him  from  his  see.  Six  years  later,  the  dedication  of  a  great 
Church  at  Antioch  was  made  the  occasion  of  holding  another 
council  of  one  hundred  Bishops,  and  again  the  Arian  sen- 
timent predominated.  The  council  professed  the  utmost 
reverence  for  ''the  holy  and  great  Synod"  of  Nicaea;  but 
they  soon  showed  that  their  object  was  to  gain  authority 
among  catholics  by  pretending  to  be  catholics  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  word.  They  set  forth  more  than  one  Declara- 
tion of  Faith  in  terms  of  their  own  choosing,  and  their 
language  was  so  carefully  chosen  to  avoid  offence  to  catho- 
lics that  one  of  their  Declarations  was  confessed  to  be  sus- 
ceptible of  an  orthodox  interpretation.  Their  true  animus, 
however,  was  exhibited  by  the  adoption  of  two  canons, 
in  themselves  unobjectionable,  but  the  first  of  which  had 
all  the  effect  of  a  new  decree  of  deposition  against  Athan- 
asius, while  the  second  amounted  to  a  prohibition  of  his 
restoration,  since  it  virtually  forbade  the  rehearing  of  his 
cause  before  a  higher  and  more  competent  tribunal  than 
the  Synod  of  Tyre  had  been.  On  the  whole,  the  action  of 
the  Council  of  Antioch    was  so  adroit  that,  although  the 


74  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

disloyalty  of  its  purpose  was  perfectly  well  understood,  it 
could  not  be  set  aside. 

The  Arians  began  again  to  take  courage,  and  while  the 
objectionable  phrases  of  Arius  concerning  the  Person  of 
Christ  were  studiously  avoided,  similar  language  began  to 
be  used  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit.  Other  forms  of  er- 
ror likewise  began  to  prevail  throughout  the  East,  and 
a  council  of  oriental  Bishops,  one  hundred  and  fifty  in 
number,  was  assembled  at  Constantinople,  A.  D,  389. 
This  council  reasserted 'the  Nicene  Declaration,  emphasiz- 
ing it  by  the  introduction  of  a  few  significant  phrases, 
and  adding  to  it,  as  a  corrective  of  the  Arian  denials  con- 
cerning the  Holy  Spirit  and  other  recent  errors,  all  the 
additional  matter  contained  in  the  Creed  which  is  now 
commonly  called  the  Nicene. 

Again  the  voice  of  the  Universal  Church  approved  the 
Declaration  of  this  council,  so  that  although  the  number 
of  its  members  was  so  small,  and  although  there  was  not 
one  Bishop  of  the  Western  Church  among  them,  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople  was  forth v/ith  accepted  and  acknow- 
ledged as  an  Ecumenical  Council  by  the  acclamation  of 
the  whole  Church,  Eastern  and  Western. 

Again,  too,  we  must  observe  that  it  was  not  the  votes  of 
the  one  hundred  and  fifty  Bishops  of  Constantinople,  but 
the  universal  testimony  of  the  Christian  world,  which  es- 
tablished the  fact  that  the  Declaration  of  those  Bishops 
contained  a  true  statement  of  the  universal  Christian  Faith 
concerning  the  matters  of  which  it  spoke. 

And  again  we  have  to  observe  that  the  Declaration  of 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  75 

Constantinople  was  not  a  creed  imposed  upon  Christen- 
dom. It  was  not  intended  as  a  substitute  for  the  baptis- 
mal creeds  which  were  in  use  in  the  different  Churches. 
The  Council  adopted  no  canon  requiring  it  to  be  general- 
ly subscribed,  even  in  the  Churches  whose  Bishops  were 
present.  Afterwards,  as  before,  it  was  open  to  Christian 
people  everywhere  to  profess  the  Christian  Faith  in  what- 
ever language  they  found  most  acceptable  to  themselves. 

But  again,  as  before,  those  who  were  inclined  to  heresies 
made  large  use  of  that  liberty,  and  a  new  error  made  its  ap- 
pearance in  the  heresy  attributed  to  Nestorius. 

Accordingly,  a  third  great  council  was  assembled  at  Eph- 
esus,  A.  D.  431,  at  which  many  Eastern  Bishops  were  in 
attendance  and  the  Western  Churches  were  represented  by 
delegates  from  Rome.  This  was  the  most  stormy  of  all 
the  Ecumenical  Councils.  Its  judgment  of  particular  cases 
was  the  judgment  merely  of  a  majority  of  its  members,  to 
which  the  minority  refused  to  submit.  Its  doctrinal  deci- 
sions were  likewise  rejected  by  the  minority,  and  when  the 
council  broke  up  in  confusion,  it  seemed  as  if  a  permanent 
schism  had  been  inaugurated.  But  it  was  not  so.  The 
acts  of  the  council  were  speedily  approved  and  its  judg- 
ments sustained  by  the  adhesion  of  the  whole  Church;  and, 
after  a  time  of  reflection,  most  of  the  minority  submitted  in 
good  faith. 

But  the  Council  of  Ephesus  differed  from  the  previous 
Councils  of  Nicasa  and  Constantinople  in  this,  that  it  set 
forth  no  new  Declaration  of  the  Faith.  The  particular 
heresy  it  had  to  deal  with  was  that  of  Nestorius,  who  was 


76  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

charged  with  teaching  that  the  "  Holy  Thing"  which  was 
bom  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  was  called  the  Son  of  God, 
w^as  not  God.  This  was  clearly  inconsistent  with  the 
Nicene  Declaration,  and  no  new  declaration  was  needed  to 
expose  the  inconsistency.  On  the  contrary,  if  any  new  de- 
claration had  been  set  forth,  the  Nestorians  might  have  pre- 
tended that  the  Council,  and  not  they,  had  introduced  an 
innovation. 

In  dealing  with  the  Nestorian  heresy  the  Council  had 
found  the  Nicene  Declaration  to  be  a  touchstone  of  error 
in  the  matters  of  which  it  treats.  It  was  high  time  that  it 
should  be  recognized  as  such.  The  liberty  of  making 
formulas  of  faith  had  been  tremendously  abused  and  re- 
quired to  be  restrained.  It  was  absurd  that  the  meeting  of 
an  Ecumenical  Council  should  be  necessary  whenever  some 
presumptuous  priest  or  bishop  took  it  upon  him  to  recon- 
struct the  Christian  religion.  Therefore  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  formally  declared  that  it  was  both  the  right  and 
the  duty  of  local  authorities  to  assume  jurisdiction  and 
to  pronounce  judgment  in  such  cases.  After  the  Nicene 
Declaration  had  been  solemnly  read  in  open  Council,  the 
following  Resolution,  as  we  should  call  it,  was  adopted, 
and  is  now  known  as  the  Seventh  Canon  of  Ephesus: 

**  These  things  having  been  read,  the  Holy  Synod  decrees 
that  it  is  unlawful  for  any  man  to  produce,  or  to  compile, 
or  to  compose  a  different  Faith,  contrary  to  that  established 
by  the  holy  and  blessed  Fathers  assembled,  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  Nicaea. 

*'  But  those  who  shall  presume  to  compose  or  to  produce 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  77 

or  offer  a  different  Faith  to  persons  desiring  to  turn  to  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  truth,  whether  from  Heathenism  or 
from  Judaism,  or  from  any  heresy  whatsoever,  shall  be  de- 
posed, if  they  be  Bishops  or  Clergymen;  Bishops  from  the 
Episcopate  and  Clergymen  from  the  Clergy;  and  if  they  be 
laymen,  they  shall  be  anathematized." 

The  Seventh  Canon  of  Ephesus  is  generally  but  errone- 
ously supposed  to  have  set  forth  the  Nicene  Declaration  as 
a  creed  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  but,  as  a  creed,  we 
have  clearly  seen  that  the  Nicene  Declaration  would  have 
been  defective  in  several  important  particulars;  and  if  the 
Fathers  of  Ephesus  had  intended  to  establish  a  creed  for 
universal  use,  they  would  hardly  have  forgotten  the  Decla- 
ration of  Constantinople,  which  would  have  perfectly  an- 
swered that  end.  In  what  they  did  they  followed  the  in- 
variable example  of  their  predecessors.  They  went  no  fur- 
ther than  the  matters  before  them  required  that  they  should 
go.  In  those  matters  they  had  found  the  Nicene  Decla- 
ration to  be  sufficient  and  satisfactory;  and  they  thereupon 
enacted,  first,  that  it  should  thenceforward  be  an  ecclesias- 
tical offence  to  compile  or  compose  any  doctrinal  state- 
ment which  should  be  inconsistent  with  that  Declaration; 
and  second,  that  to  offer  or  propound  any  such  statement 
to  any  person  desiring  to  enter  the  Christian  Church  should 
be  punishable  with  the  penalty  of  deposition.  It  must 
be  admitted,  I  think,  that  the  language  of  the  canon  is 
obscure.  Closely  examined,  it  seems  to  have  been  made 
up  of  two  originally  independent  propositions,  one  of 
which  was  probably  engrafted  on  the  other  as  a  rider  or 


78  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

amendment;  and  in  a  council  so  stormy,  it  would  be  noth- 
ing wonderful  if  such  an  amendment  were  to  be  clumsily 
joined  to  the  original  proposition.  This,  at  all  events,  is 
clear,  that  if  the  council  intended  the  very  language  of  the 
Nicene  Declaration  to  be  universally  obligatory,  it  did  not 
say  so;  and  it  is  equally  clear  that  if  it  intended  to  make 
the  Nicene  Declaration  a  test  of  all  heresies,  it  adopted  a 
formula  which  the  Fathers  of  Constantinople  had  found  to 
be  insufficient  to  answer  that  purpose. 

Twenty  years  later  the  work  which  was  imperfectly  done 
by  the  Council  of  Ephesus  was  unequivocally  completed. 
In  451  the  greatest  of  all  the  Councils,  numbering  six  hun- 
dred and  thirty  bishops,  assembled  at  Chalcedon  for  the 
correction  of  recently  invented  forms  of  heresy;  and  as  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  had  found  that  the  definition  of  Niccea, 
fairly  and  grammatically  construed  in  its  obvious  sense,  was 
a  sufficient  protection  against  Nestorianism,  so  the  Fathers 
of  Chalcedon  found  that,  in  the  definitions  of  Nicaea  and 
Constantinople  united,  the  Church  had  a  sufficient  protec- 
tion against  all  heresies  whatsoever.  It  was  now  a  hundred 
and  twenty-six  years  since  the  Council  of  Nicaea  had  as- 
sembled, and  nearly  four  hundred  and  twenty  years  since 
the  Apostles  had  received  their  commission  to  go  and  teach 
all  nations.  In  all  that  time  the  Catholic  Church  had  never 
but  twice,  and  then  with  great  reluctance,  exercised  its  su- 
preme function  of  exact  doctrinal  definition.  Heretics,  on 
the  contrary,  had  been  ever  ready  with  irreverent  self-con- 
ceit to  affirm  or  deny,  as  the  whim  took  them;  and  the  ab- 
sence of  a  fixed  formula  or  symbol  of  faith  had  been  severe- 


THE  CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  79 


\y  felt.  For  want  of  it,  faithful  members  of  the  Church  had 
been  liable  to  be  led  away  by  heretics  who  professed  the 
greatest  devotion  to  orthodoxy  and  the  utmost  reverence  for 
the  Councils  of  the  Church,  but  who  availed  themselves  of 
the  unrestrained  liberty  of  exposition  to  set  forth  new  for- 
mulas which  were  inconsistent  with  the  faith  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  In  like  manner  heathen  persons  embracing  Chris- 
tianity, and  heretics  or  schismatics  desiring  to  return  into  the 
one  fold,  were  liable  to  be  required  by  pretentious  priests 
to  subscribe  to  formulas  which  were  not  only  unauthorized, 
but  which  were  expressly  designed  to  teach  heresy  in  the 
Church  itself.  The  necessity  of  having  not  only  sound  and 
sufficient  definitions  of  the  Faith,  but  also  a  fixed  and  un- 
alterable form  of  words  by  which  to  test  the  soundness  of 
other  definitions,  had  at  length  become  manifest.  The 
Declarations  of  Nicaea,  and  Constantinople,  were  theologi- 
cally exact  in  their  terms;  they  had  been  unequivocally  ap- 
proved by  the  Christian  Churches  throughout  the  whole 
world;  and  they  had  been  found  to  be  amply  sufficient 
in  their  scope  to  express  the  Catholic  Faith.  Therefore  the 
Fathers  of  Chalcedon,  in  dealing  with  the  new  heresies  of 
their  day,  imitated  the  example  of  the  Fathers  of  Ephesus. 
They  did  not  adopt  or  impose  new  definitions.  They 
tested  disputed  doctrines  by  simply  comparing  them  with 
the  definitions  of  Nicaea  and  Constantinople.  For  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Church  in  the  future  they  renewed  the  prohi- 
bition of  Ephesus,  which  forbade  the  setting  forth  of  any 
doctrinal  statement  which  should  be  inconsistent  with  the 
definitions  of  Nicaea;  they  extended  that  prohibition  to  state- 


80  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

ments  inconsistent  with  the  definitions  of  Constantinople; 
and  lastly,  they  declared  that  not  only  the  doctrines  ex- 
pressed in  those  definitions,  but  the  very  ipsissivia  verba,  the 
identical  words  in  which  they  were  defined,  should  be  and 
remain  unalterable.  The  distinction  is  very  clearly  brought 
out  in  the  two  words  pistis  and  symholon;  pistis  referring  to 
the  doctrine,  and  symbolott  to  the  formula,  of  the  Creed. 
Repeating  the  prohibition  of  Ephesus,  the  Fathers  of  Chal- 
cedon  declared  "that  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  pro- 
duce, or  compile,  or  compose,  or  hold,  or  teach  to  others 
any  diff'erent  faith  {heieran  pisthi),"  a  prohibition  which 
manifestly  applied  to  the  substance  of  the  Faith  and  to  all 
modes  of  teaching;  and  then  they  proceeded  furthermore 
to  enact  that  "those  who  shall  presume  EITHER  to  com- 
pose a  different  faith  {pistin),  OR  to  publish,  or  teach,  or 
deliver  a  different  formula  {symboloii),  to  persons  desirous 
of  turning  to  the  truth  from  heathenism,  or  Judaism,  or 
any  heresy  whatsoever,  shall  be  deposed,  if  they  be  bish- 
ops or  clergymen — bishops  from  the  Episcopate  and  Cler- 
gymen from  the  Clergy;  and,  if  they  be  monks  or  laymen 
they  shall  be  anathematized." 

A  few  words  more  will  complete  our  brief  historical  ex- 
cursus. The  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  were  re- 
ceived and  approved  by  the  whole  Christian  w^orld.  The  Ni- 
cene  declaration,  with  the  additions  made  at  Constantino- 
ple, was  acknowledged  to  be  a  full  and  sufficient  statement 
of  the  Christian  Faith,  and  a  touchstone  of  all  heresies,  so 
that  any  man  who  assented  to  that  Creed,  for  it  was  now 
emphatically  a  Creed,   could  not  lawfully  be  required  to 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  81 

subscribe  to  any  other  statement  of  doctrine,  however  true 
it  might  be,  as  a  condition  of  communion  in  any  Christian 
Church  on  earth.  Such  was  the  unanimous  judgment  and 
decree  of  the  whole  Christian  Commonwealth. 

From  that  auspicious  day  to  this,  the  Chalcedonian  De- 
cree has  been  neither  repealed  nor  amended.  After  the 
great  Council  of  Chalcedon  only  two  councils  of  an  undis- 
puted ecumenical  character  were  ever  held,  the  Second  and 
Third  Councils  of  Constantinople.  In  both  of  them  serious 
errors  of  doctrine  were  examined  and  condemmed,  but  in 
neither  of  them  was  it  necessary  to  set  forth  any  new  defini- 
tions of  doctrine,  because  it  was  found  that  when  the  errors 
in  question  were  submitted  to  the  test  of  the  Nic3eno-Con- 
stantinopolitan  Creed,  they  were  so  clearly  inconsistent  with 
it  that  not  to  have  condemmed  them  would  have  been  to 
renounce  the  Nicene  Faith. 

Since  the  Third  Council  of  Constantinople  no  Church  Coun- 
cil, calling  itself  ecumenical,  has  really  been  so.  There 
have  been  General  Councils  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  and 
of  the  Western  Churches;  but  not  one  of  them  has  been 
ecumenical;  and  the  decisions  of  none  of  them  have  been 
approved  by  universal  Christendom.  Their  doctrinal  de- 
crees have  been  expressions  of  local  opinion;  they  have 
been  powerless  to  add  one  jot  to  the  faith  of  the  Church 
Catholic.  Whenever  any  of  them,  in  the  face  of  the  Decree 
of  Chalcedon,  has  presumed  to  make  the  reception  of  its 
doctrinal  opinions  a  condition  of  Christian  communion,  it 
has  thereby  transgressed  a  fundamental  law  of  the  Christian 
Commonwealth,  and  every  Bishop,  Priest  or  Deacon  will- 


82  THE  CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

ingly  consenting  to  such  action  has  incurred  the  penalty  of 
deposition  from  his  office. 

We  must  not  imagine,  however,  that  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon  required  the  Nicene  Creed  to  be  substituted  for  the 
simpler  baptismal  creeds  which  were  used  in  different 
Churches.  It  was  neither  to  be  expected  nor  to  be  desired 
that  children,  peasants  and  other  illiterate  persons,  that  is 
to  say,  a  vast  majority  of  mankind,  should  be  vexed  with 
the  subtleties  of  theological  distinctions.  It  was  wholly 
unnecessary  that  they  should  be  taught  the  differences  be- 
tween homo-ousios  and  homoi-ousios.  Therefore  the  old  pro- 
vincial formulas  continued,  at  least  in  the  Western  Churches, 
to  be  as  freely  used  as  they  had  been  before.  So  long  as 
Christian  people  could  declare  that  they  sincerely  believed 
those  formulas,  they  were  just  as  much  Christian  people  as 
they  would  have  been  if  they  had  lived  before  the  Council 
of  Niccea  was  held.  But  whenever  they  were  tempted  to 
refine  upon  the  faith  they  had  professed  at  baptism,  and 
especially  when  they  were  eager  to  tell  what  they  did  not 
believe,  the  Nicene  Creed  was  there  to  test  whether  their 
opinions  did  or  not  accord  with  the  unanimous  judgment 
of  the  Christian  Church.  If  their  opinions  agreed  with  the 
Nicene  Creed,  they  were  Christian  opinions;  and  whether 
they  were  true  or  false,  or  wise  or  foolish,  if  they  were  not 
contradictory  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  they  might  be  lawfully 
held  by  Christian  people  without  prejudice  to  their  Chris- 
tianity. 

I  submit  to  you,  then,  that  in  the  Creed  commonly  called 
the  Nicene  we  have  a  sufficient  statement  of  the  doctrinal 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  83 

part  of  the  Christian  religion,  set  forth  as  such  by  lawful 
representatives  of  the  whole  Christian  Commonwealth;  ac- 
claimed as  such  by  the  universal  Christian  Church;  never  re- 
pealed by  any  world-wide  Christian  assembly;  and  now  pro- 
fessed by  nineteen-twentieths  of  all  who  call  themselves 
Christians. 

Those  who  explicitly  hold  the  Apostles'  Creed,  without 
denying  any  part  of  the  Nicene  Creed — which  is  the  precise 
position  of  most  Christian  lay-people — do  implicitly  hold 
the  Nicene  doctrine,  and  to-day,  in  spite  of  all  divisions, 
the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Anglican  Churches,  the  Oriental 
Churches,  and  all  the  greater  Protestant  denominations, 
such  as  the  Lutherans,  the  Presbyterians,  and  the  Metho- 
dists, maintain  the  Nicene  Creed  itself.  Nay  more,  even 
bodies  of  Christians  who  imagine  that  their  Christian  liberty 
would  be  endangered  by  a  formal  admission  of  written 
creeds,  do  in  fact  hold  the  faith  of  universal  Christendom 
as  it  is  summarily  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and 
they  hold  it  in  the  very  sense  in  which  it  is  more  precisely 
expressed  in  the  Nicene  Creed.  In  other  words,  notwith- 
standing all  existing  divisions,  universal  Christendom,  vir- 
tually with  one  accord,  still  maintains  the  Christian  Faith, 
as  it  was  set  forth  at  Nicoea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus  and 
Chalcedon.  Moreover,  the  universal  Christian  world  agrees 
in  nothing  else.  Every  Church,  at  one  time  or  another, 
has  attempted  some  improvement  on  the  One  Faith  of  the 
Church  Catholic,  and  every  time  when  any  Church  has 
done  so  has  been  a  time,  and  the  beginning  of  a  time,  of 
fresh  discords  and  of  new  divisions.     Only  in   the   One 


84  TEE  CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

Faith  has  any  sort  of  unity  been  maintained;  and  by  the 
One  Faith,  I  think  that  our  historical  excursus  justifies  us 
in  understanding  that  which  is  set  forth  in  the  Creed  com- 
monly called  the  Nicene. 

That,  at  least,  is  the  unequivocal  position  of  the  Church 
to  which  we  belong.  The  Bishops  of  the  American  Church 
in  1887  set  forth  a  Declaration  concerning  the  conditions 
of  a  restoration  of  visible  Christian  Unity  in  which  they 
mentioned  as  one  of  the  indispensable  points,  "the  Nicene 
Creed,  as  a  sufficient  statement  of  Christian  doctrine."  In 
1888  the  Bishops  of  the  Anglican  Churches  all  the  world 
over  assembled  at  Lambeth,  and  endorsed  the  previous 
Declaration  of  the  American  Bishops.  So  far,  therefore,  as 
we  are  concerned,  our  Church  stands  firmly  by  the  Church 
of  the  first  centuries.  Her  Christianity  is  the  Christianity  of 
Chalcedon,  not  one  jot  less,  and  not  a  single  jot  more. 

So  far  as  doctrine  goes,  we  are  therefore  entitled  to  say 
that  the  only  Christianity  in  behalf  of  which  we  are  bound 
to  find  sufficient  evidence  is  the  Christianity  of  the  Nicene 
Creed.  Let  those  who  care  to  do  so  trouble  themselves  to 
prove  the  hundreds  of  pious,  non-pious  and  impious  opinions 
with  which  the  Christianity  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles  has 
too  often  been  overloaded  and  almost  submerged.  We  are 
content  to  stand  by  that  statement  of  its  truths  which  the 
universal  voice  of  Christian  men  and  Christian  Churches  has 
accepted  in  every  age  and  every  land  as  the  Christian  Faith 
which  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  To  show  the  truth 
of  that  statement  is  to  prove  the  truth  of  Christianity,  be- 
cause, if  that  is  true,  Christianity  is  true,  while  the  volu- 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE  85 

minous  theological  aberglaube  of  sects  and  doctors  has  often 
so  obscured,  defaced  and  deformed  the  truth  of  Christ  that 
one  might  justly  set  it  down  as  an  invention  of  the  Enemy 
of  Souls  to  make  the  truth  itself  incredible. 

Allow  me  now  briefly  to  state  the  results,  as  I  conceive 
them,  of  our  examination  of  historical  facts. 

We  have  seen  how  the  Providence  of  God  guided  the  Uni- 
versal Church  of  the  early  ages,  step  by  step,  in  successive 
measures  for  the  defence  of  the  Christian  Faith.  We  have 
seen  that,  at  every  step,  it  was  not  by  the  personal  author- 
ity even  of  the  Apostles,  nor  by  the  arguments  of  Doctors, 
nor  by  arbitrary  decrees  of  Councils,  that  the  Christianity 
or  non-Christianity  of  new  doctrines  was  decided,  but  by 
the  morally  unanimous  judgment  of  the  universal  Church 
of  Christ,  to  which  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  was 
promised.  We  have  seen  the  extreme  reluctance  with  which 
Councils  of  the  Church  were  constrained  to  compose  formal 
definitions  of  faith.  We  have  seen  how  slow  they  were  to 
set  forth  such  definitions  as  verbally  obligatory  creeds,  even 
when  necessity  required  them  to  be  set  forth  as  declarations 
of  Christian  truth.  We  have  seen  that  the  Nicaeno-Constan- 
tinopolitan  Symbol,  commonly  called  the  Nicene  Creed,  was 
at  last  established  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  not  to  super- 
sede the  customary  baptismal  creeds  of  local  Churches,  but 
as  a  bulwark  against  heresies.  We  have  seen  that  it  was  then 
set  forth,  with  the  moral  consent  of  all  Christendom,  both  as 
a  sufficient  statement  of  Christian  Doctrine  and  as  a  consti- 
tutional law  of  Christian  liberty,  so  that  opinions  which  are 
not  in  conflict  with  it  may  be  freely  held  without  prejudice 


86  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

to  the  Christianity  of  him  who  holds  them.  We  have  seen 
that  it  was  then  declared  to  be  a  high  crime  and  misdemea- 
nor, punishable  with  deposition  and  excommunication,  to 
demand  of  any  man,  as  a  condition  of  Christian  commun- 
ion, that  he  should  receive  or  believe  anything  not  con- 
tained in  that  symbol.  We  have  seen  that  no  consentient 
action  of  the  Christian  Church  has  ever  repealed  that  un- 
animous decree,  which  is  consequently  still  binding  in  every 
part  of  the  universal  Church.  W^e  have  seen  that,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  the  truths  expressed  in  that  symbol  are  still  held, 
explicitly  or  implicitly,  by  an  immense  majority  of  all  who 
profess  and  call  themselves  Christians,  however  separated 
from  each  other  in  other  respects.  Finally,  we  have  seen 
that  the  separated  bodies  of  Christians  who  are  one  in  that 
faith,  are  at  one  in  hardly  anything  else.  Having  seen  these 
things,  we  are  at  liberty  to  join  in  the  acclamation  which 
was  raised  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  at  the  adoption  of 
the  Chalcedonian  Decree.  The  Acts  of  the  Council  record 
that  after  it  had  been  read,  the  assembled  Bishops  cried 
out:  ''This  is  the  Faith  of  the  Fathers.  This  is  the  Faith 
of  the  Apostles.  By  this  we  all  stand.  This  we  all  be- 
lieve." 

Assuming,  then,  that  the  Nicene  Creed  is  a  sufficient  state- 
ment, and  the  only  indisputably  authorized  statement,  of 
the  Christian  Faith,  that  is,  of  the  Christian  religion  on  its 
doctrinal  side,  it  clearly  follows  that  the  Nicene  Creed  sets 
the  limit  of  Christian  apologetics.  Whatever  is  not  con- 
tained, explicitly  or  implicitly,  in  that  creed  may  be  true 
and  edifying;  but  the  verity  of  the  Christian  religion  is  not 


THE  CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  87 

in  the  least  bound  up  with  it.  Hence  it  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  carefully  to  scrutinize  the  Nicene  Creed  and  to 
see  whether  it  does,  or  does  not  sanction  several  doctrinal 
theories  or  opinions  which  are  popularly  supposed  to  be  es- 
sential to  the  Christian  Faith,  but  which  are  really  no  part 
of  Christianity.  If  there  are  such  doctrines,  the  result  of 
our  scrutiny  will  be  to  discriminate  the  Christian  Faith  in 
its  integrity  at  once  from  pious  and  edifying  doctrines  which 
may  lawfully  be  held  by  Christian  people  whose  great  privi- 
lege it  may  be  to  have  learned  them,  but  which  are  not  es- 
sential to  a  genuine  Christianity,  and  also,  perhaps,  from 
certain  other  opinions  which  are  held,  undoubtedly,  by  many 
Christian  people,  but  only  to  the  detriment,  though  not  to 
the  destruction,  of  their  Christianity. 

Beginning,  then,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Nicene  Creed, 
we  find  that  in  its  very  first  clause  it  delivers  us  from  a 
thousand  imaginary  difficulties  of  the  present  time  by  ex- 
cluding the  whole  ground   of  a  controversy  which  ought 
never  to  have  been  begun;  I  mean  the  so-called  conflict 
between    science    and    religion.     Science   investigates   the 
operations  of  nature  which    religion  maintains  to  be  the 
work — and   possibly   more  than  the  mere  work — of  God. 
How  God  has  made  nature,  the  Christian  religion,  as  it  is  \i  {^7 
stated  in  the  Nicene  Creed,   does  not  pretend  to  tell;  and  ^  c^-* 
there  is  nothing  in  the  investigations  of  science  which  so  ^)jt^'^ 
much  as  touches  the  utmost  verge  of  the  sublime  affirmation   ^i  ^ 
that  ''God  the  Father  Almighty  "  is  the  ''  Maker  of  heaven      ""  ' 
and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible."     The 
one  statement  supplements  the  other;  that  is  all.     Science 


88  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

has  never  proved,  and  never  can  prove,  that  nature  is  not 
the  work  of  God.  On  that  subject  conflict  between  science 
and  religion  is  impossible.  Scientific  men  may  indeed  be 
atheists;  but  atheism  is  not  science.  Atheism  is  a  negation 
which  can  never  be  proved,  and  which  every  successive  dis- 
covery of  science  shows  to  be  less  and  less  probable. 

It  is  concerning  the  method  of  creation,  rather  than  the 
fact  of  creation,  that  science  and  religion  are  supposed  to 
be  in  conflict  with  each  other.  Scientific  men,  with  almost 
absolute  unanimity,  have  accepted  the  theory  of  evolution, 
and,  for  my  part,  though  I  must  insist  on  remembering  that 
the  evolution  theory  is  to  this  hour  nothing  more  than  an  un- 
verified theory,  I  find  no  insurmountable  religious  difficulty 
to  attend  that  theory.  Certainly  there  is  nothing  in  it  to 
contradict  the  Nicene  Creed.  Mr.  Spencer  defines  the  pro- 
cess of  evolution  as  follows:  "Evolution  is  an  integration  of 
matter  and  concomitant  dissipation  of  motion;  during  which 
the  matter  passes  from  an  indefinite,  incoherent  homogene- 
ity to  a  definite,  coherent  l*emog6«€ity;  and  during  which 
the  retained  motion  undergoes  a  parallel  transformation." 
Now,  I  do  not  pretend  to  understand  that  definition  as  well 
as  I  should  like  to  understand  it;  but  we  may  understand 
from  it,  at  least,  that  evolution,  since  it  is  a  process,  must 
have  had  a  beginning.  We  may  further  understand  that 
before  the  process  of  evolution  began  there  existed  an  un- 
diff'erentiated  chaos  in  which  everything  was  like  every  thing 
else,  and  nothing  was  related  to  anything  else;  nothing  had 
any  properties  or  qualities  by  which  it  could  be  distinguished 
from  another  thing,  or  by  which  it  could  attract,  or  repel,  or 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  89 


Otherwise  affect  another  thing.  In  such  a  chaos  there  can 
have  been  no  motion,  because  the  presence  of  motion  would 
have  created  changes  of  relation,  and  would  consequently 
have  begun  a  process  of  differentiation  and  integration.  If, 
therefore,  we  have  now  a  world  in  which  the  originally  dead 
homogeneity  of  chaos  has  given  place  to  a  universe  of  hetero- 
geneous individualities  which  are  reciprocally  related  to  each 
other,  it  is  because  of  the  introduction  of  motion;  and  the  in- 
troduction of  motion  implies  the  introduction  of  yet  another 
factor.  That  factor  is  force,  without  which  it  is  impossible 
to  conceive  of  the  beginning  of  any  motion  whatever.  Thus 
the  very  statement  of  the  theory  of  evolution  concedes,  or 
rather  asserts,  the  existence  of  an  originally  undifferentiated 
and  motionless  chaos,  from  which  the  present  universe  has 
been  evolved  by  the  operation  of  a  force  or  forces  which 
cannot  have  been  originally  present  in  it. 

But  when  the  evolutionist  investigates  the  forces  of  the  uni- 
verse, as  they  now  exist  and  operate  in  nature,  he  finds  that 
they  all  appear  to  be  forms  of  one  single,  subtle  force  which 
eludes  his  search,  and  which,  when  it  seems  to  have  been 
destroyed,  has  only  changed  its  form  and  mode  of  operation. 
Thus  he  is  brought  at  length  to  admire  what  he  calls  *'  the 
persistence  of  force,"  by  which,  says  Mr.  Spencer,  "we 
really  mean  the  persistence  of  some  power  which  transcends 
our  knowledge  and  conception.  The  manifestations  of 
force  (he  continues)  occurring  either  in  ourselves  or  out- 
side of  ourselves  do  not  persist;  but  that  which  does  persist 
is  the  unknown  cause  of  these  manifestations.  In  other 
words,  asserting  the  persistence  of  force  is  but  another  mode 


90  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 


of  asserting  an  unconditioned  reality  without  beginning  or 
end." 

Now,  against  all  this  the  Nicene  Creed  has  little  to  say. 
The  difference  between  the  evolutionist  and  the  Nicene 
Creed  is:  First,  That  the  evolutionist,  as  such,  assumes,  but 
does  not  account  for,  the  existence  of  an  original  undiffer- 
entiated chaos,  while  the  Nicene  Creed,  without  joining  in 
that  questionable  assumption,  does  account  even  for  such 
a  chaos,  if  it  ever  did  exist;  second,  that  the  evolutionist,  as 
such,  has  no  name  for  the  unconditioned  and  eternal  Power 
from  which  all  forces  proceed,  while  the  Nicene  Creed  gives 
it  the  name  of  God;  third,  that  the  evolutionist  calls  the 
change  from  an  undifferentiated  chaos  to  an  orderly  uni- 
verse a  process,  while  the  Nicene  Creed  calls  it  a  making  or 
creation;  and  fourth,  that  the  evolutionist  has  a  theory  of 
the  creative  process,  while  the  Nicene  Creed  has  none.  Be- 
tween the  evolutionist  and  the  Nicene  Christian  there  is  no 
irreconcilable  conflict,  nor  any  conflict  at  all.  If  an  evolu- 
tionist does  not  deny  that  the  uncreated  and  eternal  Reality, 
by  which  the  substance  as  well  as  the  forces  of  nature  con- 
sist, is  God,  his  theory  of  evolution  will  work  no  prejudice 
to  the  Christian  faith,  which  neither  affirms  nor  denies  any 
theory  whatever  of  the  method  of  creation. 

I  have  chosen  to  refer  thus  fully  to  the  theory  of  evolution, 
because  it  is  the  only  scientific  theory  with  which  any  state- 
ment of  the  Nicene  Creed  could  by  any  possibility  be  sup- 
posed to  conflict,  and  when  we  discover  that  there  is  no 
necessary  conflict  between  them,  we  must  surely  conclude 
that  any  and  every  conflict  between  science  and  Nicene 


THE   CHALCEDOyiAJV  DECREE.  91 

Christianity  is  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  unnatural.  If  scien- 
tific men  have  been  too  ready  to  assume  that  their  discover- 
ies are  fatal  to  Christianity,  we  can  only  say  that  the  only 
summary  statement  of  Christianity  which  has  any  claim  to 
be  universally  authoritative  does  not  justify  that  assumption; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  if  too  many  impetuous  Christians 
have  been  equally  swift,  or  perhaps  more  swift,  to  declare 
that  scientific  discoveries  are  subversive  of  Christianity,  we 
have  again  to  say  that  the  admission  may  be  true  of  their 
personal  or  sectarian  versions  of  Christianity,  but  that  it  is 
absolutely  untrue  of  the  Christianity  of  the  Nicene  Creed. 
A  conflict  between  science  and  sectarianism  is  always  pos- 
sible; a  conflict  between  science  and  genuine  Catholic  Chris- 
tianity is  not  possible,  because  the  Nicene  Creed  makes  no 
affirmation  of  any  kind,  with  which  any  discovery  of  physi- 
cal science  has  been^  or  ever  can  be,  inconsistent. 

It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  physical  science  and  the 
Christian  religion  have  nothing  to  do  with  each  other.  Sci- 
ence as  well  as  religion  is  occupied  with  "invisible  things 
of  God, "  which  are  ' '  clearly  seen  "  in  the  sensible  phenomena 
of  nature;  and,  therefore,  a  reverent  and  veracious  study  of 
nature  must,  in  the  end,  be  serviceable  to  religion,  I  hold 
it,  for  example,  to  be  no  light  matter  that  a  scientific  evo- 
lutionist like  Mr.  Spencer  indignantly  repudiates  the  gross 
materialism  of  which  he  has  so  frequently  been  claimed  as 
an  adherent.  I  count  it  for  much  in  the  religious  educa- 
tion of  the  world  that  such  a  man  as  he  declares  that  the  in- 
vestigation of  physical  nature  by  a  rigid  scientific  method 
proves  the  universal  presence  of  an  uncreated  and  eternal 


92  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 


Power  to  be  ' '  the  most  certain  of  all  things. "  I  am  not  dis- 
couraged when  I  observe  that  he  does  not  profess  to  find  in 
nature  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  ''Godhead"  of  the  Inscrut- 
able Power  which  nature  manifests,  because  religion  does 
not  say  that  Godhead  is  revealed  in  nature,  and  an  inspired 
religious  sage  mournfully  asks:  "Canst  thou  by  searching 
find  out  God  ?  Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  to  per- 
fection ?  It  is  high  as  heaven — what  canst  thou  do  ?  It  is 
deeper  than  hell — what  canst  thou  know  ?  "  Yet  I  con- 
fess that  I  am  strengthened  to  find  that  Mr.  Spencer  does 
implicitly  maintain  what  St.  Paul  maintains,  that  is,  the  di- 
vinity of  the  Inscrutable  Power  which  is  manifested  in  na- 
ture; for  what  else  than  divine  can  that  power  be  which  con- 
tains within  itself  the  potentiality  of  all  Powers  and  forces, 
physical,  intellectual,  social  and  moral,  and  which  is  so 
transcendently  exalted  above  humanity  as  to  be  beyond  the 
reach  alike  of  human  scrutiny  and  of  human  understand- 
ing .?  Thus,  true  science,  and  just  so  far  as  it  is  true  sci- 
ence, comes  in  aid  of  faith;  nay,  it  is  itself  a  way  to  faith. 
True  science  is  simply  the  result  of  a  carefully  exact  reading 
of  God's  book  of  nature,  followed  by  a  carefully  methodical 
arrangement  of  the  revelations  which  are  found  there;  and 
how  far  the  investigations  of  science  may  be  destined  here- 
after to  confirm  religion,  no  man  can  foretell.  There  is 
profound  truth  in  these  lines  of  the  prophetic  poet  of  our 
time  : 

"  Flower  in  the  crannied  wall, 
I  pluck  you  out  of  the  crannies;  — 
Hold  you  here,  root  and  all,  in  my  hand, 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  93 


Little  flower:— but  if  I  could  understand 
What  you  are,  root  and  all,  and  all  in  all, 
I  should  know  what  God  is  and  man  is  !" 

The  time  limitations  within  which  I  must  confine  these 
remarks  forbid  me  to  say  more  of  the  relations  of  science 
and  reHgion  than  to  repeat  with  emphasis  that  these  two 
departments  of  divine  knowledge  can  never  rightly  come 
into  antagonism;  and  that  with  Christianity,  as  defined  in 
the  Nicene  Creed,  neither  physical  science,  nor,  I  will  add, 
intellectual  science,  can  come  into  any  antagonism  which  is 
not  purely  gratuitous ;  since  Christianity,  so  defined,  says 
just  as  little  of  any  matter  of  physical  or  intellectual  science 
as  of  mathematics  or  philology. 

I  come  now  to  the  innumerable  difficulties  which  have 
attended  recent  studies  and  investigations  in  Biblical  Criti- 
cism; and  here,  at  the  very  outset,  I  must  ask  you  not  to 
misunderstand  me.  I  do  not  profess  to  be  a  competent 
critic  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  do  not  profess,  therefore, 
to  be  a  competent  critic  of  the  critics.  I  confess  that  I 
have  been  led  to  believe  that  what  are  called — somewhat 
prematurely,  perhaps — the  results  of  modern  criticism,  are 
partly  true.  I  am  prepared  to  admit,  for  instance,  that  the 
Pentateuch  is  a  composite  work  of  various  origin  and  that 
it  was  not  all,  nor  nearly  all,  written,  nor  even  compiled, 
by  Moses.  I  am  prepared  to  admit  that  there  were  proba- 
bly two  Isaiahs,  and  not  only  one.  I  am  prepared  to  ad- 
mit that  the  closing  verses  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St. 
Mark  are  a  late  addition  to  the  original  Gospel.     I  am  pre- 


94  THE  CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

pared  to  admit  that  passages,  such  as  that  which  contains 
the  beautiful  story  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  may 
have  been  interpolated  in  other  Gospels.  I  am  very  sure 
that  I  John  v.  7,  is  a  scandalous  interpolation.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  very  many  things  of  which  I  am  by  no 
means  so  sure  as  the  critics  profess  to  be,  and  I  have  seen 
reason  to  change  my  opinion  of  some  things  in  which  I 
formerly  followed  then.  For  example,  at  one  time,  and 
for  a  long  time,  I  believed  the  Johannean  authorship  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  to  be  a  great  deal  worse  than  doubt- 
ful; whereas,  after  a  careful  perusal  of  Dr.  Watson's  noble 
Bampton  Lectures  on  that  subject,  I  am  now  fully  per- 
suaded that  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  as 
certain  as  that  of  any  of  the  others.  These  remarks  will 
suffice,  I  trust,  to  show  that,  while  I  am  not  eager  to  adopt 
rash  conclusions  concerning  the  Scriptures,  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  reject  conclusions  in  which  competent  scholars 
are  agreed,  though  they  may  not  accord  with  the  traditional 
opinions  in  which  I  was  brought  up.  Most  assuredly  I  do 
not  defend  the  presumptuous  "  free  handling  "  of  the  Bible 
by  which  some  men,  who  are  anything  but  competent 
critics,  have  secured  to  themselves  a  brief  and  unenviable 
notoriety;  but  neither  have  I  any  admiration  of  the  timidity 
which  shrinks  from  getting  at  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  what- 
ever it  may  be.  For  my  part,  I  want  nothing  else  than  the 
truth  about  it.  The  clearer  that  truth  is  made,  the  better 
we  shall  understand  the  Bible,  and  the  more  we  shall  profit 
by  it.  Hence  I  am  not  indifferent  to  the  course  of  criti- 
cal inquiry.     I  am  deeply  and  intensely  interested  in  it — 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  95 

far  more  deeply  and  intensely  than  in  any  investigations  of 
physical  science,  because  the  subject  of  it  is  of  such  un- 
speakably sacred  importance.  But  I  am  utterly  and  abso- 
lutely indifferent  to  the  results  to  which  veracious  criticism 
may  lead,  provided  only  that  the  criticism  be  so  thorough 
and  so  veracious  that  the  results,  when  reached,  may  be 
trustworthy.  Whatever  those  results  shall  be,  I  have  not 
the  slightest  fear  of  them,  because,  if  all  the  most  destruc- 
tive results  of  biblical  criticism  were  to  be  proved  beyond 
dispute,  the  Christian  religion,  as  defined  in  the  Nicene 
Creed,  would  remain  not  only  unscathed  but  untouched. 
That  is  the  point  to  which  I  wish  now  to  call  your  atten- 
tion. 

I  do  not  wonder  at  the  consternation  with  which  the 
slightest  assured  results  of  biblical  criticism  have  been 
received  by  Christian  people  who  have  been  trained  to 
believe  in  the  extreme  rabbinical  theory  of  the  verbal 
inspiration  of  the  whole  Bible  in  all  its  parts.  That  theory 
has  no  warrant  in  the  Scripture  itself ;  it  was  never  formulated 
by  the  Catholic  Church;  it  was  not  known  to  the  Fathers 
of  the  Church;  it  was  repudiated  by  the  schoolmen  of  the 
middle  ages;  it  was  not  set  forth  by  any  reformed  Church  in 
the  sixteenth  century;  the  discoveries  of  science  have  proved 
it  to  be  untenable;  textual  criticism  has  shivered  it  to  atoms; 
the  higher  criticism  treats  it  with  just  disdain.  The  mis- 
fortune is  that  many  Christian  people  have  been  educated  to 
believe  that  the  truth  of  Christianity  depends  upon  the  truth 
of  that  unfounded  theory,  and  when  the  theory  falls,  their 
faith  in   Christianity  falls   with   it.     The   case   of  Bishop 


96  TEE   CHALCEDONIAN'  DECREE. 


Colenso  is  an  instructive  one.  He  had  been  brought  up  to 
believe  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration.  It  seems  never  to 
have  occurred  to  him  that  Christianity  could  be  true  if  that 
theory  was  not  true.  The  questions  of  ''an  intelligent 
Zulu"  set  him  to  thinking  of  certain  statements  which  are 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  Being  a  trained  mathematician 
and  in  no  sense  of  the  word  a  theologian,  he  set  about  an 
examination  of  the  figures  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  and  was 
soon  convinced  that  they  were  hopelessly  wrong.  Not  only 
did  they  involve  what  he  considered  to  be  physical  impos- 
sibilities, but  they  did  not  even  agree  with  each  other. 
Then  he  made  calculations  of  the  amount  of  water  that 
would  be  required  to  cover  the  whole  earth  to  the  height  of 
Mount  Ararat,  and  satisfied  himself  that  the  story  of  Noah's 
flood,  as  he  understood  it,  was  erroneous.  But  if  there  was 
error  in  the  figures  of  Numbers  and  error  in  the  history  of 
Genesis,  what  became  of  the  infallible  correctness  of  the 
statements  of  the  Bible  ?  If  the  Bible  was  not  infallibly 
correct  in  every  particular,  what  was  to  become  of  its 
(verbal)  inspiration  ?  And  if  the  Bible  was  not  (verbally) 
inspired,  what  became  of  Christianity  .?  What  did  become 
of  all  three  in  Colenso's  case  was  that  he  threw  them  all  to 
the  winds,  and,  while  holding  the  ofBce  of  a  Bishop  in  a 
Christian  Church,  he  renounced  his  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as 
the  Son  of  God,  The  experience  of  Colenso  has  often  been 
repeated.  Over  and  over  again  persons  who  have  been 
taught  to  believe  that  the  truth  of  Christianity  depends  upon 
the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Bible  have  been  jeered  out  of 
both    by  such    writers   as   Tom    Paine   or   by   peripatetic 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  97 


lecturers  on  **the  mistakes  of  Moses,"  who  are  themselves 
victims  of  that  same  fatal  misapprehension.  I  can  imagine 
that  a  sharp  investigation  of  some  of  those  alleged  "mis- 
takes "  might  be  a  suitable  subject  for  a  course  of  lectures 
on  this  foundation,  and  it  would  surely  end  by  proving  that 
Moses,  or  whoever  else  may  have  written  any  part  of  the 
Pentateuch,  knew  more  of  his  subject  than  any  of  his  critics. 
That,  however,  is  no  part  of  the  present  subject.  What  I 
have  to  show  is  that  if  all  those  fearful  allegations  were 
true,  it  would  make  not  one  particle  of  difference  to 
Christianity. 

Considering  the  immense  importance  which  has  been  at- 
tached in  recent  times  to  questions  of  biblical  criticism,  it 
is  an  amazing  relief  to  find  how  little  such  questions  were 
regarded  in  the  Primitive  Church.  The  very  difficulty  of 
proving  the  origin  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  from 
the  scattered  references  to  them,  and  the  rather  loose  quo- 
tations from  them,  which  are  found  in  early  Christian  au- 
thors shows  how  lightly  many  matters  were  regarded  in 
those  times  which  are  now  deemed  to  be  of  supreme  impor- 
tance. The  whole  testimony  of  antiquity  concurs  at  least 
in  this,  that  the_BoolLS  of  Holy  Scripture  were  regarded 
rather  as  means  to  faith  than  as  objects  of  faith.  For  gen- 
erations different  Churches  had  different  parts  of  Holy 
Scripture,  while  few  of  them  had  all;  but  all  of  them  pos- 
sessed and  held  the  Christian  Faith.  We  saw  in  our  last 
lecture  that,  when  catalogues  of  the  Sacred  Writings  came 
to  be  set  forth  by  different  Churches,  those  catalogues  were 
not  identical:  that  no  consentient  action  of  the  Universal 


98  THE   CHALCEDONIAiV  DECREE. 

Church  has  ever,  to  this  day,  settled  the  canon  of  Holy 
Scripture  for  all  Christendom;  that  the  canon  of  the  Roman 
Church  was  not  finally  settled  until  the  sixteenth  century; 
that  the  canon  of  the  Anglican  Church,  which  was  settled  a 
few  years  later,  was  not  identical  with  the  Roman;  and  that 
the  canon  of  the  Greek  Church  differed  from  both  until 
near  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century.  These  facts 
alone  show  how  completely  independent  the  Christian  re- 
ligion must  be  of  any  and  every  result  to  which  the  most 
searching  criticism  of  the  Scriptures  can  ever  lead.  A  re- 
ligion which  endured  the  trial  of  fiery  persecution  for  ages 
before  one  single  province  had  determined  for  itself  the 
number  or  the  names  of  the  Books  to  be  recognized  as 
Holy  Scripture,  a  religion  which  never  to  this  day  has  set- 
tled that  primary  question  with  unanimity,  a  religion  wh^"ch 
has  never  committed  itself  to  any  statement  of  the  author- 
ship of  those  Books  nor  to  any  critical  account  of  their  con- 
tents— such  a  religion  cannot  in  common  reason  be  held  to 
depend  upon  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  any  theory  of  inspi- 
ration, and  still  less  can  it  be  overthrown  or  unsettled  by 
critical  discoveries  which  can  contradict  absolutely  nothing 
it  has  ever  said.  The  theory  of  verbal  inspiration,  whether 
it  stands  or  falls,  is  no  part  of  Christianity;  and  no  real  or 
supposed  discoveries  of  critics  concerning  the  date,  or  the 
authorship,  or  the  composition  of  the  Scriptures  either  does 
or  can  conflict  with  the  Christian  Faith,  as  contained  in  the 
Nicene  Creed,  since  that  creed  says  not  one  word  on  any 
one  of  those  subjects. 

What  the  Nicene  Creed  really  does,  and  all  that  it  does, 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  99 

is  to  affirm  the  fact  of  inspiration  in  the  pregnant  saying 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  "■  spake  by  the  prophets."  This  is  the 
more  remarkable,  and  the  more  emphatic  in  its  significance, 
when  we  reflect  that  various  theories  of  inspiration  were 
already  prevalent,  and  that  the  Church  declined  to  recog- 
nize any  one  of  them  as  exclusively  Christian.  The  early 
Christian  writers  constantly  referred  to  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  as  authoritative  sources  of  divine 
knowledge,  but  it  is  impossible  to  gather  from  them  any 
one  consistent  theory  of  inspiration.  Origen  was  more 
precise.  He  declared  that  the  plenitude  of  inspiration  was 
such  as  to  protect  the  sacred  writers  from  any  lapse  of 
memory  and  from  any  error  or  superfluity;  and  when  he 
found  himself  unable  to  reconcile  the  literal  statements  of 
Scripture  with  that  theory,  he  escaped  from  the  difficulty 
by  treating  them  as  allegories.  In  general  the  Church  re- 
garded Holy  Scripture  as  primarily  an  edifying  source  of 
information.  ''The  Scriptures  edified  because  they  in- 
structed." There  was  no  question  anywhere  of  the  fact  of 
inspiration.  Rather  there  was  a  tendency  to  recognize  the 
operation  of  the  enabling  Spirit  everywhere — the  Spirit  of 
Truth  in  the  writers  of  the  sacred  word,  enabling  them  to 
tell  the  truth;  the  Spirit  of  Understanding  in  the  reader, 
enabling  him  to  apprehend  the  truth;  and  the  Spirit  of  Wis- 
dom in  the  whole  body  of  the  Church,  enabling  it  to  dis- 
criminate the  very  and  essential  truth  of  Christ  from  matters 
of  less  moment,  which  sects  and  individuals  might  imagine, 
rightly  or  wrongly,  to  be  taught  in  Holy  Scripture.  These 
were  pious  and  permissible  beliefs,  and  the  Church  forbade 


],00  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

none  of  them;  but  neither  did  it  see  fit  to  define  any  of 
them,  lest  perchance  it  might  seem  to  exclude  some  other 
true  though  partial  apprehension  of  the  operatio'i  of  the 
Life-Giving  Spirit  of  God.  Under  the  old  dispensation 
that  Spirit  spake  in  many  partial  and  various  ways  to  the 
fathers  in  the  prophets.  Which  of  these  would  it  be  lawful 
to  exclude  by  a  new-fangled  theory  of  inspiration .?  Under 
the  new  covenant  that  one  and  the  self-same  Spirit  divideth 
to  every  man  severally  as  He  will,  and  it  is  by  His  holy  in- 
spiration that  we  are  now  enabled  to  think  those  things  that 
are  right.  Who  would  presume  to  set  up  a  theory  of  inspi- 
ration which  would  virtually  deny  that  the  various  and  par- 
tial inspirations  of  **the  Holy  Ghost  who  spake  by  the 
prophets  "  were  generically  different  from  the  diversities  of 
gifts  by  which  that  one  and  self-same  Spirit  now  guides  and 
inspires  Christ's  Church  and  its  members  .?  In  the  hard  and 
fast  theories  of  inspiration  which  have  prevailed  in  modern 
times  nothing  is  so  pitiful  as  the  unconscious  but  real  as- 
sumption that  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  spake  of  old  to  the 
fathers  in  the  prophets,  speaks  no  more  in  that  new  and 
fuller  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  which  our  Saviour  promised; 
and  nothing  in  it  is  so  profanely  presumptuous  as  its  un- 
conscious and  unintended,  but  unequivocal,  contradiction 
of  our  Lord  Himself,  Who  declared  that  while  the  fact  of 
inspiration  may  be  seen  in  its  effects,  its  nature  is  inscrut- 
able, and  consequently  undefinable.  "The  wind  (He  said) 
bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  there- 
of, but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  or  whither  it  goeth: 
so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit."     The  Church  of 


THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE.  IQl 

Christ  was  right,  then,  in  refusing  to  define  the  nature  of 
inspiration,  either  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  elsewhere.  At 
all  events,  it  did  not  define  the  nature  of  inspiration;  it 
was  content  to  profess  its  faith  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Giver  of  all  life,  physical  and  spiritual.  Who  of  old  times 
spake  in  many  strange  ways,  such  as  dreams  and  visions, 
to  the  fathers  through  the  prophets,  and  whose  constant 
presence — not  for  one  age,  but  through  all  ages — Jesus 
Christ  has  promised  to  His  Church.  Our  conclusion, 
therefore,  is  that  no  theory  of  inspiration  either  is  or  ought 
to  be  any  part  of  Christianity;  and  that  objections  to  Chris- 
tianity which  are  founded,  explicitly  or  implicitly,  on  any 
such  theory,  are  utterly  irrelevant.  Hence  all  the  difficul- 
ties created  by  the  real  or  imaginary  discoveries,  and  by  the 
sound  or  unsound  conclusions,  of  biblical  critics,  since 
they  are  diflficulties  only  because  of  some  preconceived  theory 
of  inspiration,  may  very  properly  cause  reasonable  doubts 
of  that  theory;  but  they  involve  no  question  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  which  is  bound  up  with  no  theory  on  that 
subject. 

I  know  not  how  the  thoughts  which  I  have  put  before 
you  may  strike  your  minds;  but  to  not  a  few  troubled  minds 
in  these  times  it  may  come  almost  as  a  light  from  heaven, 
dispelling  many  a  gloomy  shade  of  doubt  and  difficulty,  to 
learn  that  no  past,  present  or  possible  discovery,  whether 
of  science  or  criticism,  can  cast  one  particle  of  doubt  upon 
the  Christian  Faith  as  that  Faith  has  been  set  forth  and  de- 
fined by  the  only  competent  authority,  that  is,  by  the  voice 
of  universal  Christendom.     There  is  more  light  of  the  same 


102  THE   CHALCEDONIAN  DECREE. 

sort  to  be  had  from  the  same  source,  and  some  of  it  I  shall 
hope  to  show  you  in  the  next  lecture.  Meanwhile,  and  be- 
fore proceeding  further,  may  I  not  ask  you  to  admit  that 
the  Chalcedonian  Decree,  so  far  as  we  have  yet  considered 
it,  was  no  tyrannical  encroachment  on  the  lawful  freedom 
of  the  individual  Christian,  but  stands  vindicated  in  this 
nineteenth  century  as  a  truly  constitutional  and  catholic  law 
of  light  and  liberty  ? 


LECTURE    IV. 
THE  NICENE  CREED. 


LECTURE   IV. 

THE  NICENE   CREED. 

UNDER  THE  DECREE  OF  CHALCEDON  THEORIES  OF  PREDESTI- 
NATION, SOTERIOLOGY,  SPIRITUAL  OPERATION,  SACRAMEN- 
TAL GRACE  AND  ETERNAL  JUDGMENT  ARE  NO  PART  OF 
CHRISTIANITY.  SYMBOLIC  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  CREED  DOES 
NOT  VOID  ITS  PLAIN  SIGNIFICANCE.  THE  CONCEPTION  AND 
RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST.  THE  CHURCH  AS  UNDERSTOOD 
IN    THE    CREED.     POSITION    OF    THE  LAMBETH  CONFERENCE. 

God  is  Love. — I  John  iv.  8. 

God  is  light,  and  in  Him  is  no  darkness  at  all. — I  John  i.  5. 

God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life. 
—John  iii.  16. 

If  the  one  [Lutheranism]  was,  as  history  shows  us,  in  constant  danger 
of  antinomian  developments,  the  other  struck  at  the  root  of  morality  by- 
making  God  Himself  unjust.  Forensic  fictions  of  substitution,  immoral 
theories  of  the  Atonement,  the  rending  asunder  of  the  Trinity,  and  the 
opposing  of  the  Divine  Persons,  like  parties  in  a  lawsuit,  were  the  nat- 
ural corollaries  of  a  theory  which  taught  that  God  was  above  morality 
and  man  beneath  it. — Rev.  Aubrey  Moore,  M.  A. 

J.  S.  Mill's  well  known  words,  "I  will  call  no  being  good  who  is  not 
what  I  mean  when  I  apply  that  epithet  to  my  fellow-creatures,"  was  a 
noble  assertion  of  immutable  morality,  against  a  religion  which,  alas! 
he  mistook  for  Christianity.  The  conscience  of  to-day — and  it  is  a  real 
gain  that  it  should  be  so — refuses  to  believe  that  the  imprimatur  of  re- 
ligion can  be  given  to  that  which  is  not  good,  or  that  God  would  put  us 
to  moral  confusion.  It  would  rather  give  up  religion  altogether  than 
accept  one  which  will  not  indorse  and  advance  our  highest  moral  ideas. 
— Ibid. 

105 


106  THE  NICENE  CREED. 


In  religion, 
What  damned  error  but  some  sober  brow 
Will  bless  it  and  approve  it  with  a  text, 
Hidmg  the  grossness  with  fair  ornament. — Shakspeare. 
First,  I  commend  my  soul  into  the  hands  of  God,  my  Creator;  hoping 
and  assuredly  believing,  through  the  only  merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  my 
Saviour,  to  be  made  partaker  of  life  everlasting. — Shakspeare's  Will. 
In  the  early  Church,  the  careful  distinction  which  later  times  have 
made  between  Baptism,  Regeneration,  Conversion  and  Repentance,  did 
not  exist.     Tliey  all  meant  the  same  thing. — Dean  Stanley. 

I  do  not  know  whether  I  shall  live  again  on  earth  or  elsewhere; 
whether  I  shall  be  a  being  of  three  dimensions  or  four,  or  of  no  dimen- 
sions at  all;  whether  I  shall  be  in  space  or  out  of  space.  It  is  far  better 
to  give  up  speculations  about  accidental  trifles,  such  as  these;  for  acci- 
dents they  are  as  compared  with  the  essence  of  the  second  life,  which 
consists  in  love. — E.  A.  Abbott. 

My  own  dim  life  should  teach  me  this, 
That  life  shall  live  forevermore; 
Else  earth  is  darkness  at  the  core, 
And  dust  and  ashes  all  that  is. 

Thou  wilt  not  leave  us  in  the  dust: 

Thou  madest  man,  he  knows  not  why; 
He  thinks  he  was  not  made  to  die; 

And  Thou  hast  made  him:  Thou  art  just.— Tennyson. 

We  have  seen  that  no  discovery  of  science,  and  no  theory 
which  can  properly  be  called  a  scientific  theory,  conflicts, 
or  ever  can  conflict,  with  Nicene  Christianity.  We  have 
also  seen  that  while  a  veracious  criticism  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  may  indeed  upset  some  modern  theories  of  in- 
spiration, they  cannot  disturb  the  Christian  Faith,  which  is 
bound  up  with  no  theories  on  that  subject.  I  have  next 
to  show  that  Christianity  is  not  in  the  least  responsible  for 
certain  other  doctrinal  beliefs  which  have  been  unwarranta- 
bly connected  with  it,  and  have  greatly  added  to  its  difficul- 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  107 

ties  by  making  it  either  incredible  to  the  intellect  or  repug- 
nant to  the  conscience. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  modern  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion. It  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  founded  on  certain 
discourses,  of  St.  Paul,  and  yet,  strange  as  it  may  seem, 
those  discourses,  for  centuries  after  they  ^vere  written,  do 
not  appear  to  have  been  understood  in  the  sense  in  which 
they  have  more  recently  been  taken.  The  originator  of  the 
later  doctrine  of  predestination  was  St.  Augustine,  one  of 
the  greatest,  if  not  the  very  greatest,  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  who,  nevertheless,  by  his  teaching  of  that  doctrine, 
poisoned  and  corrupted  the  religion  he  professed.  In  his 
early  life  St.  Augustine  had  been  a  Manichean,  believing, 
like  other  followers  of  Mani,  that  the  universe  is  governed, 
not  by  one  living  and  true  God,  but  simultaneously  by  a 
God  of  Light  and  by  another  God  of  Darkness,  who  are  en- 
gaged in  an  eternal  conflict  with  each  other.  On  his  con- 
version to  Christianity  Augustine  unconsciously  retained 
not  a  little  of  the  gloom  of  his  original  Manicheism;  and, 
with  the  consistency  of  a  remorseless  logic,  he  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  attribute  to  the  God  of  Tight  Whom  He  adored  a 
cruelty  which  were  worthier  to  be  ascribed  to  the  God  of 
Darkness  whom  he  abhorred.  Bad  as  Augustinian  predes- 
tinarianism  was,  however,  it  was  not  so  consistently  dread- 
ful as  the  later  system  of  Calvin,  which  makes  the  salvation 
of  men  to  depend  upon  an  immutable  decree  of  God,  issu- 
ing solely  from  His  eternal  will  before  the  foundations  of 
the  world  were  laid,  and  predicated  on  no  divine  foresight 
of  the  faith  or  good  works  of  those  who  are  saved.      In  the 


108  THE  NICENE  CREED. 

fulness  of  time  the  elect  are  effectually  called  into  a  state 
of  salvation;  without  regard  to  their  conduct,  they  are  ac- 
counted righteous;  without  regard  to  their  personal  dispo- 
sition, they  are  constrained  to  continue  in  the  way  of  salva- 
tion; and  at  last  they  are  entirely  sanctified  and  admitted 
to  eternal  glory.  If  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  stopped 
there,  it  would  reduce  every  human  being  who  is  saved  to 
the  condition  of  a  spiritual  automaton,  irresistibly  con- 
trolled by  a  Power  exterior  to  itself:  but  at  least  the  con- 
trolling Power  could  not  be  called  cruel  or  unjust.  Calvin- 
ism, however,  does  not  stop  there.  It  declares  that  from 
all  eternity  the  number  of  the  elect  has  been  unchangeably 
fixed  by  the  decree  of  God  and  can  be  neither  increased  nor 
diminished;  so  that  no  man  who  is  not  predestined  to 
eternal  life  can  possibly  be  saved,  however  he  may  live  or 
die.  From  all  eternity  the  reprobate  man  has  been  foreor- 
dained to  be  born  into  a  fallen  state  of  being,  from  the  mo- 
ment of  his  birth  to  lie  under  God's  wrath  and  curse,  to  be 
liable  to  all  the  miseries  of  life  and  death,  and  at  last  to  fall 
into  the  pains  of  hell  forever.  All  this,  remember,  is  sup- 
posed to  happen  because  God  has  chosen  of  His  own  will 
to  have  it  so.  A  man  is  saved  or  damned  simply  because 
God  wills  and  irresistibly  decrees  that  he  shall  be  saved  or 
damned;  and  God  is  supposed  to  will  and  decree  the  salva- 
tion of  some  and  the  damnation  of  others  merely  to  please 
Himself 

Now,  I  have  not  the  slightest  hesitation  in  saying  that  if 
this  doctrine  were  any  part  of  Christianity,  I  should  renounce 
Christianity  forthwith  as  immensely  worse  than  atheism.     It 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  109 


is  better  not  to  believe  in  God  than  to  believe  Him  to  be 
inconceivably  and  capriciously  malignant;  better  a  thousand 
times  to  embrace  agnosticism  than  to  believe  God  to  be  an 
almighty  demon.  Yet  millions  of  Christian  people  have 
gone  through  the  world  fancying  that  they  believed  these 
slanders  against  God,  and  many  millions  more  have  theo- 
retically or  practically  renounced  Christianity  because  they 
believed  it  to  be  responsible  for  them.  If  you  ask  some 
of  the  most  virulent  enemies  of  Christianity  what  makes 
their  hatred  so  embittered,  I  believe  you  will  find  that  it  is 
this  doctrine  of  predestination  and  another  doctrine  of  a 
similar  sort  which  have  made  Christianity  not  only  incredible 
to  their  intellect  but  repulsive  to  their  sense  of  justice. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  something  of  a  relief  to  be  as- 
sured that  neither  the  Augustinian  nor  the  modern  doctrine 
of  predestination  is  any  part  of  Christianity.  Concerning 
the  foreknowledge  and  decrees  of  God,  as  concerning  His 
method  of  creation, — things  which,  from  their  very  nature, 
are  not  rightly  knowable,  and  therefore  cannot  be  defined — 
not  one  single  syllable  is  to  be  found  in  the  Nicene  Creed  ! 
But  that  is  not  all.  The  modern  theory  of  election  and 
reprobation  is  irreconcilable  with  the  very  first  article  of  the 
Nicene  Creed.  That  article  declares  that  God,  Who  is  the 
Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible  in  heaven  and  earth, 
is  not  only  almighty  in  power,  but  is  also  a  Father  in  char- 
acter. Now,  as  Christ  said  in  His  teaching,  "What  man  is 
there  of  you"  who  would  deliberately  bring  children  of  his 
own  into  existence,  for  the  express  purpose  of  consigning 
them  * '  to  the  pains  of  hell  forever  ?  "     Is  there   a  man   on 


110  THE  NICENE  CREED. 

earth  who  would  do  such  a  thing,  or  entertain  the  though^ 
of  it  for  one  single  instant  ?  There  is  no  such  man  on 
earth;  and  there  is  no  such  God  in  heaven.  There  is  no 
such  God  anywhere  save  in  the  insane  imaginations  of  men 
whom  overmuch  one-sided  learning  hath  made  mad,  and  in 
the  thoughts,  but  never  truly  in  the  hearts,  of  others  who 
have  been  misled  by  them.  God  the  Father  Almighty,  the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  infinitely  bet- 
ter, and  not  infinitely  worse,  than  any  man  of  you.  It  may 
sometime  save  some  of  you  from  the  danger  of  a  painful 
sort  of  scepticism  to  remember  that  the  modern  doctrine  of 
predestination  is  no  part  of  Christianity;  but  that  if  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed  is  true,  and  if  the  theology  of  Christ  is  true,  that 
doctrine  is  false. 

I  would  not  have  you  think,  however,  that  because  I  re- 
ject that  dreadful  doctrine  with  all  the  moral  antipathy  and 
intellectual  energy  of  which  I  am  capable,  therefore  I  con- 
demn those  who  think  they  hold  it.  Not  at  all.  Our  very 
strongest  beliefs  have  a  slighter  hold  upon  us  than  we  ever 
reahze.  Every  one  of  us,  for  instance,  believes,  or  indeed, 
we  might  say,  he  knows,  that  he  is  doomed  to  die;  yet, 
practically,  we  live  on  as  if  we  were  to  live  forever,  and  the 
shadow  of  our  coming  doom  casts  no  gloom  on  our  lives. 
So,  too,  we  think  that  we  believe  the  Gospel  of  Christ;  but 
if  we  only  did  believe  it,  as  we  think  we  do,  how  diff"erent 
we  should  be  1  How  sweetly  gracious  in  behavior  !  How 
patient  under  provocation  !  How  serene  in  trouble  !  How 
loving  to  our  friends  1  How  magnanimous  to  enemies  ! 
How  brotherly  to  all  men  !      How  little  we  should  dread 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  HI 

death  !  How  hopefully  we  should  expect  the  day  on  which, 
for  us,  eternal  life,  shall  dawn  !  If  we  only  half  believed  in 
Christ  as  we  say  we  do  and  think  we  do,  we  should  be  far 
more  like  Him  than  we  ever  are.  The  trouble  is  that  we  be- 
lieve in  Him  with  the  mind  far  more  than  with  the  heart  ; 
and  it  is  with  the  heart  that  a  man  believeth  unto  righteous- 
ness. Just  so,  it  is  with  the  heart  that  men  believe  unto  un- 
righteousness. If  a  man  is  brought  up  to  believe  a  false 
and  cruel  doctrine,  it  does  not  always  follow  that  the  doc- 
trine will  make  him  cruel,  though  that,  undoubtedly,  is  its 
natural  effect.  Other  doctrines  of  a  contrary  nature  may  so 
completely  overshadow  the  false  and  cruel  doctrine  that  he 
shall  hardly  realize  it  intellectually  and  never  at  all  appro- 
priate it  heartily.  There  is  not  a  living  man  to-day  in  this 
world,  however  strongly  he  jnay  think  he  holds  the  Calvinis- 
tic  system,  who  would  not  be  glad  at  heart  to  disbelieve  it. 
So  far  as  he  does  believe  it,  he  believes  it  only  with  his 
mind.  No  living  man  either  does  or  can  believe  it  with  his 
heart.  Meanwhile  a  thousand  influences  of  Christianit}' 
combine  to  countervail  the  influence  of  the  unloved  and 
unlovely  doctrine.  The  Fatherhood  of  God  is  all  against  it. 
Every  honest  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  is  inconsistent 
with  it.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  a  categorical  contra- 
diction of  it.  The  common  instincts  of  justice,  humanity, 
benevolence,  are  fatal  to  it;  for  no  man  can  really  believe 
that  God  is  less  just,  less  humane,  less  benevolent,  than  he 
himself  is;  and  no  man  can  really  or  heartily  believe  that  a 
vast  majority  of  his  fellowmen,  to  whom  he  himself  is  bound 
to  be  just,  humane  and  pitiful,  have  been  arbitrarily  doomed 


112  THENICENE  CREED. 


by  God  Almighty  to  a  horrible  fate  which  outrages  every  in- 
stinct of  justice,  humanity  and  mercy.  Hence,  I,  for  one, 
do  not  beUeve  that  any  man  on  this  earth  believes  the  doc- 
trines of  predestination  to  which  I  have  referred.  Any  man 
who  should  undertake  in  this  age  of  the  world  to  preach 
them,  as  Jonathan  Edwards  preached  them,  though  he 
should  do  it  with  an  agony  of  soul  as  manifest  as  that  of 
Edwards  was,  would  drive  his  congregation  from  him  in 
horror  and  amazement.  Be  that,  however,  as  it  may,  it  is 
your  privilege  and  mine  to  know  that  those  doctrines  are  no 
part  of  Christianity,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  are  plainly 
inconsistent  with  the  very  first  foundation  article  of  the  Chris- 
tian Faith. 

When  we  consider  the  endless  controversies  of  mediaeval 
and  modern  theologians  concerning  the  divine  means  and 
method  of  human  salvation,  it  is  truly  humbling  and  most 
instructive  to  turn  to  the  sublime  simplicity  of  the  Nicene 
Creed.  In  popular  theology  one  often  finds  something  like 
a  controversy  between  the  persons  of  the  Godhead,  the 
Father  standing  as  an  impersonation  of  inexorable  ven- 
geance, and  the  Son  as  an  impersonation  of  infinite  good- 
ness and  divine  compassion.  Now,  in  the  unity  of  the 
Godhead,  there  can  be  no  such  opposition  of  character. 
If  there  were,  the  unity  of  God  would  be  destroyed.  There 
would  be  two  Gods  or  three  Gods;  there  could  no  longer 
be  one  God.  The  truth  is  that  popular  theology  contains 
in  it  a  large  amount  of  unconscious  Manicheism,  and  olfers 
to  popular  faith  one  God  to  be  dreaded  and  another  God 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  113 

to  be  loved.  Naturally  that  theology  takes  little  note  of 
the  great  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  It  looks 
not  only  chiefly  but  exclusively  at  the  death  of  Christ,  as  if 
the  hiding  of  His  Godhead  in  a  form  of  clay  must  not  have 
been  as  great  a  sacrifice  as  the  death  which  it  contemplated, 
and  by  which  He  was  at  length  released  from  His  assumed 
condition  of  humiliation  In  the  Nicene  Creed  there  is  no 
such  dividing  of  the  Godhead,  no  such  partial  and  unsatis- 
factory apprehension  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  nor  any 
attempt  whatever  to  devise  a  philosophical  theory  concern- 
ing it.  There  is  no  exaltation  of  the  Incarnation,  so  as  to 
make  the  death  and  passion  of  our  Lord  merely  an  incident 
of  the  Incarnation;  neither  is  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation 
represented  as  a  merely  introductory  step  to  the  sacrifice  of 
Calvary.  The  Nicene  Creed  states  the  whole  truth,  and 
states  it  without  one  syllable  of  interpretation  which  our 
Lord  and  His  Apostles  withheld.  It  exalts  nothing  beyond 
measure,  and  depresses  nothing  from  its  due  importance. 
'  For  us  men  and  for  our  salvation  (^^  vi^^oii  h.t.X.^/'  it  says 
"He  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  incarnate  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  Man;  for 
our  sakes  (iTtip  7)u(2y^  He  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pi- 
late, and  suffered,  and  was  buried,  and  rose  again  the  third 
day  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  ascended  into  heaven, 
and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father;  (for  our  sakes) 
He  Cometh  again  with  glory  to  judge  the  living  and  the 
dead."  From  first  to  last  it  is  all  "  for  us  men  and  for  our 
salvation;  "  in  all  the  marvelous  whole  and  in  each  particu- 
lar of  the  whole,  it  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  be  "  for  our  sakes." 


114  THE  NICENE  CREED, 

What  an  amazing  contrast  have  we  here  to  the  endless  intel- 
lectual muddle,  the  pretentious  jargon  and  the  arrogant  ab- 
surdities of  individual  doctors,  sects  and  churches  that  have 
undertaken  to  be  wiser  than  the  universal  Church  of  Christ ! 
Theories  of  the  plan  of  salvation  have  cleared  av/ay  no  dif- 
ficulties; they  have  made  many.  Some  of  the  most  effect- 
ive and  profane  assaults  that  have  ever  been  made  upon 
Christianity  have  been  grounded  upon  one  or  other  of  those 
theories;  so  that  one  might  well  hesitate  before  concluding 
whether  those  assaults,  or  the  unauthorized  theories  which 
made  them  possible,  are  the  more  profane.  I  think  it, 
therefore,  necessary  to  insist  that  any  theory  whatever,  and 
whether  it  be  true  or  false,  which  pretends  to  pass  one  line 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  reverent  reserve  of  the  Nicene  Creed, 
is  no  part  of  Christianity,  and  is  only  too  likely  to  be  both 
untrue  and  presumptuously  profane. 

Precisely  the  same  remark  must  be  made  concerning  un- 
uthorized  theories  of  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  souls  of  individual  men.  It  is  our  Saviour  Himself,  as 
we  have  seen,  Who  declares  the  operations  of  God's  Spirit 
to  be  inscrutable,  and  consequently  as  undefinable  as  they 
are  real  and  manifest.  What  volumes  of  controversy  have 
there  not  been  written  on  justification,  adoption  and  sanc- 
tification  !  And  after  all,  it  has  been  justly  said  that  the 
difference  between  the  Roman  doctrine  and  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  justification  is  only  the  difference  between  a 
qucB  and  a  quci.  For  my  part,  I  care  as  little  for  the  quce 
as  for  the  qua.     There  is  a  sense  in  which  I  could  believe 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  115 

the  one  or  the  other;  consequently,  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  I  believe  both;  and  if  I  believed  neither  of  the  two, 
and  had  never  heard  of  them,  it  would  make  not  one  parti- 
cle of  difference  to  Christianity,  which  knows  neither  of 
them,  nor  to  my  spiritual  condition,  which  they  do  not  af- 
fect. It  is  not  botany  that  makes  the  flower  to  spring  or  that 
gives  its  fragrance;  and  it  is  not  theology  that  makes  the 
gift  of  God's  grace.  Botany  tells  things  which  are  ob- 
served; but  when  theology  attempts  to  tell  the  things  of  the 
Spirit,  it  attempts  to  tell  what  cannot  be  directly  observed 
nor  scientifically  defined. 

The  Catholic  Church  of  Christ,  speaking  in  the  language 
of  the  Nicene  Creed,  falls  into  no  such  absurdity.  It  adores 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  Lord  and  Lifegiver,  but  it  does  not 
attempt  to  parcel  out  and  label  His  ineffable  Gifts,  nor  does 
It  authorize  others  so  to  do.  It  has  no  mechanical  theory, 
for  instance,  of  a  conversion  which,  when  it  once  takes  place, 
can  never  be  repeated.  It  understands  that  all  men  who  have 
erred  and  strayed  from  God's  ways  like  lost  sheep  must,  with- 
out exception,  repent  and  be  converted,  that  their  sins  may 
be  blotted  out.  Without  exception,  I  repeat;  and  therefore, 
since  there  is  no  man  who  does  not  daily  err  from  God's  way, 
th«re  can  be  no  man  who  does  not  need  to  be  converted  every 
day  of  his  life.  It  is  all  a  question  of  degree,  and  no  defini- 
tions that  the  mind  of  man  could  frame  or  conceive  would  be 
sufficient  to  include  all  varieties  and  all  degrees  of  human 
necessity  and  divine  grace.  Consequently,  the  Church  of 
Christ  sets  forward  no  Procrustean  bed  of  spiritual  measure- 
ment, to  the  dimensions  of  which  every  soul  must  be  stretched 


116  THE  NICENEXREED. 

or  crushed.  It  demands  of  no  man  that  he  shall  repeat  the 
spiritual  experience  of  another  man.  John  Bunyan's  Chris- 
tian had  his  Slough  of  Despond,  and  his  Hill  of  Difficulty; 
he  lingered  happy  days  in  the  Interpreter's  House,  groaned 
in  the  dungeon  of  Doubting  Castle,  and  had  a  far-off  view 
of  the  Delectable  Mountains,  before  he  crossed  the  narrow 
stream  which  lies  this  side  of  the  Celestial  City.  All  these 
things  were  true  for  Christian,  that  is,  for  John  Bunyan,  and 
for  many  others.  But  they  are  not  true  for  all  men.  There 
are  blessed  souls  who  never  floundered  through  any  slough 
of  despond,  and  never  had  one  single  battle  with  Giant  De- 
spair, but  who  go  their  happy  way  through  life,  trusting  with- 
out doubt  in  their  Father's  love.  Some  there  are  to  whom 
the  grace  of  wisdom  makes  the  whole  world  one  great  House 
of  the  Divine  Interpreter,  in  which  they  learn  lessons  of  truth 
from  day  to  day.  There  are  some  before  whose  eyes  no  vis- 
ion of  the  Delectable  Mountains,  and  no  view  of  the  Heavenly 
City  ever  rises  on  this  side  of  the  Jordan,  yet  who  humbly 
tread  the  path  appointed  for  them,  and  who  reach  their  des- 
tination quite  as  surely  as  the  gallant  Christian  of  John  Bun- 
van's  holy  dream.  One  of  the  worst  things  in  popular  relig- 
ion is  that  it  prescribes  one  single  line  of  experience  to  all 
men,  women  and  children  indiscriminately:  and  nothing 
could  be  more  absurd,  unless  the  lives  of  all  men,  women 
and  children  were  as  identical  as  they  are  infinitely  various. 
The  Church  of  Christ  does  not  require  that  men  shall  be- 
gin their  conscious  spiritual  life  with  artificial  contortions  or 
with  strained  emotions.  All  men  have  sinned;  she  calls  all 
men  to  repent  and  be  converted.     To  all  she  promises  the 


THE  NICENE   CREED. 


m 


unbounded  grace  of  God  and  the  assistance  of  His  Holy 
Spirit.  But  for  instructions  concerning  the  operations  of 
the  Spirit  she  leaves  them  to  learn  from  Holy  Scripture  and 
their  own  experience.  The  language  of  Scripture,  studied 
for  edification,  not  for  purposes  of  controversy,  is  both  sim- 
ple and  sufficient:  '*  By  grace  are  ye  saved  (it  says),  through 
faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves;  it  is  the  gift  of  God  ;  " 
"therefore,  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with 
God/'  No  nicety  of  definition  could  add  to  the  instruction 
or  the  comfort  of  such  words  as  those.  Every  attempt  at 
further  and  more  minute  definition  has  done  monstrous  mis- 
chief; but  no  such  attempt  has  any  warrant  from  the  Catho- 
lic Church.  Whenever,  then,  well  meaning  men  would  have 
you  subject  your  spiritual  nature  to  a  course  of  frames  and 
feelings  to  which  you  know  it  would  not  be  possible  for  you 
to  subject  yourself  sincerely,  do  not  hesitate  to  refuse  with 
energy.  At  all  events  maintain  your  own  integrity  of  soul; 
because,  if  once  you  part  with  that,  you  can  trust  your  own 
sincerity  no  more.  If  they  call  you  to  be  converted,  and 
thrust  theories  of  conversion  upon  you,  heed  their  call,  but 
reject  their  theories.  Turn  away  from  every  wrong  thing 
you  have  fallen  into;  turn  with  all  your  heart  to  God  your 
Saviour.  But  take  no  man's  theory  of  the  operations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  or  if  you  do,  then  hold  your  theory  with  mod- 
esty, remembering  that  it  is  no  part  of  Christianity,  and  that 
though  it  may  be  true  for  your  particular  case  and  many 
other  cases  like  your  own,  it  may  be  just  as  false  for  many 
others.  There  is  many  a  benighted  soul  wandering  this  day 
in  reckless  and  resentful  unbelief  because  it  has  once  or  of- 


118  THE  NICENE  CREED 

tener  pinned  its  faith  to  some  crude  theory  of  popular  emo- 
tional religion,  which  it  has  practically  tried  and  found  to 
be  a  vain  illusion.  So  do  idle  and  unwarranted  theories  of 
Christianity  become  the  fatal  cause  of  bitterly  resentful  hatred 
of  the  truth  which  they  were  truly  and  sincerely,  but  un- 
wisely and  ignorantly,  meant  to  serve. 

They  are  many  who  might  learn  a  lesson  of  humility  from 
the  reverent  silence  of  the  Catholic  Church  concerning  the 
sacred  mystery  of  sacramental  grace.  The  Nicene  Creed 
asserts  the  reality  of  sacramental  grace  in  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  "One  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins;"  but 
there  it  stops.  The  divine  mystery  and  the  unspeakable 
gift  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  it  does  not  define.  The  un- 
broken tradition  and  the  universal  custom  of  every  branch 
of  the  Catholic  Church  has  regarded  the  Holy  Eucharist  as 
chief  among  the  agenda  of  the  Church,  the  liturgy  and  its 
accessories  (until  recently  in  the  Roman  Communion  alone) 
being  left  to  the  discrimination  of  each  particular  Church; 
but  no  definition  of  credenda  concerning  it  is  set  forth  in 
the  Catholic  Symbol.  This  is  a  very  remarkable  fact  con- 
cerning which  more  than  a  few  observations  might  well  be 
made.  Enough  that  it  is  a  fact,  which  should  teach  us  at 
least  three  things:  ist,  to  be  cautious  in  forming  opinions 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments;  2d,  to  be  yet  more  care- 
ful not  to  set  forth  any  opinions  we  may  have  formed  as  if 
they  were  catholic  truth;  and,  3d,  always  and  everywhere 
to  resist  and  deny  the  pretense  that  exact  modern  defini- 
tions, by  whomsoever  set  forth,  have  the  slightest  color  of 
catholic  authority. 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  119 

I  have  now  to  note  a  seventh  topic  on  which  the  Catholic 
Church  did  not  define,  but  which  has  recently  engaged  the 
minds  of  men  to  a  great  extent.  It  is  astonishing  that  on 
the  subject  of  Eschatology,  concerning  which  whole  libraries 
have  been  printed,  the  Catholic  Faith  gives  us  in  the  Greek 
original  only  fourteen  words,  in  which  it  declares  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ''  cometh  again  with  glory  to  judge  both 
the  quick  and  the  dead,"  and  affirms  that  *'  we  look  for  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come." 
Once  again  we  are  compelled  to  contrast  the  simplicity  and 
reserve  of  the  Catholic  Church  with  the  volubility  of  arrogant 
dogmatism  displayed  by  vastly  less  respectable  authorities. 
On  the  subject  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  the 
abundance  of  assertion  has  been  in  inverse  ratio  to  the 
httleness  of  our  knowledge.  The  doctriiia  Romanensiu?)i,  or 
the  vulgar  Romanism  of  the  middle  age,  went  wild  in  its 
horrible  declarations  concerning  the  state  of  the  lost;  and 
the  vulgar  Protestantism  of  later  times  bated  nothing  of  the 
Romish  horrors;  indeed  it  made  them  worse,  by  denying  the 
existence  of  a  purgatory,  which,  in  the  Romish  system,  left 
some  chance  of  escape.  From  the  cruel  atrocity  of  Romish 
and  Protestant  doctrine  concerning  the  last  things,  the  com- 
mon sense  and  instinct  of  mankind  have  justly  recoiled;  and 
I  believe  that  it  has  been  the  horror  of  those  abominable  and 
unauthorized  teachings,  more  than  any  other  one  thing, 
which  has  caused  a  multitude  of  men  to  renounce  Chris- 
tianity altogether.  Of  late  years  the  recklessness  of  denial 
has  been  almost  as  remarkable,  though  not,  assuredly,  so 
atrocious,  as  the  former  recklessness  of  assertion.     Now, 


120  THE  NICENE  CREED. 

there  is  declared  to  be  neither  hell  nor  purgatory,  nor  any 
judgment  at  all  worth  thinking  of.  The  reaction  has  cer- 
tainly been  extensive  and  radical;  but  Catholic  Christians 
ought  not  to  be  swayed  to  the  one  extreme  nor  to  the  other. 
They  cannot  pretend  to  make  void  the  words  of  Scripture, 
that  "whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap." 
They  cannot  pretend  that  the  tremendous  word  amtios,  the 
significance  of  which  transcends  imagination,  really  means 
nothing  of  any  consequence.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
cannot  transfer  to  eternity  the  conditions  of  time,  nor  ap- 
ply to  its  unfathomable  mysteries  a  terminology  which  is 
appropriate  to  time  conditions  only.  Here  we  may  adopt 
the  language  used  by  Bishop  Wilberforce  in  interpreting  the 
views  of  Frederick  Denison  Maurice,  which  Bishop  Wilber- 
force seems  to  have  approved.  He  says:  '*  To  represent  God 
as  revenging  upon  His  creatures  by  torments  through  never- 
ending  extensions  of  time  their  sinful  acts  committed  here 
is  (i)  unwarrantably  to  transfer  to  the  eternal  world  the 
conditions  of  this  world.  For  time  is  of  this  world;  and 
eternity  is  not  time  prolonged,  but,  rather,  time  abolished; 
and  it  is  therefore  logically  incorrect  to  substitute  in  the 
Scriptural  proposition  for  *  eternal  death  '  *  punishment  ex- 
tended through  a  never-ending  duration  of  time; '  and  (2), 
as  this  is  unwarranted,  so  it  is  dangerous;  {a)  because  by 
transferring  our  earthly  notions  of  such  prolonged  vengeance 
to  God,  it  misrepresents  His  character,  (b)  because  as  men 
recoil  from  applying  to  themselves  or  to  others  such  a  sen- 
tence, it  leads  to  the  introduction  of  unwarranted  pallia- 
tives which  practically  explain  away  the  true  evil  and  fatal 
consequences  of  sin. " 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  121 

These  views,  like  many  others  on  the  same  subject,  do 
not  cover  the  whole  ground.  How  should  they  ?  The 
whole  ground  is  eternity  ;  and  while  Maurice  and  Wilber- 
force  may  err  in  saying  that  "eternity  is  time  abolished," 
yet  at  least  eternity  is  not  time,  but  beyond  time  and  time 
conditions.  What  time  is,  no  man  knows;  of  its  conditions 
relatively  to  ourselves  we  know  something;  of  eternity  and 
its  conditions  we  know  nothing.  A  man  would  be  foolish 
to  attempt  to  discourse  of  biology  in  the  terms  of  mechan- 
ics; but  far  more  foolish  is  he  who  attempts  to  discourse  of 
eternity  in  the  terms  of  time.  When  our  Saviour  spoke  of 
eternal  life,  He  did  not  speak  in  any  such  terms.  He  said, 
"This  is  life  eternal,  to  know  Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  Whom  Thou  hast  sent."  What,  then,  must 
eternal  death  be  but  to  lose  that  knowledge  .?  To  lose  the 
very  thought  of  God;  to  lose  the  very  recollection  of  Christ's 
Name;  with  that  loss,  to  lose  all  that  they  include  ;  to  lose 
the  sense  of  good,  of  truth,  of  beauty;  consequently  to  be- 
come involved  in  unimagined  evils,  falsehoods,  foulnesses, 
all  springing  from  oneself  to  blight,  to  blind,  to  horrify.  I 
marvel  that  those  who  love  to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  ever- 
lasting punishment  should  be  so  deficient  in  imagination 
as  to  dwell  on  torments  artificially  inflicted,  when  eternal 
death,  that  true  perdition,  the  loss  of  God,  must  result  in 
torments  from  within  worse  than  the  worst  that  could  come 
from  without.  It  is  a  dreadful  subject  when  we  make  the 
best  of  it ;  but  above  every  creature  in  the  universe  is  "God 
the  Father  Almighty,"  w^ho  willeth  not  that  any  should  per- 
ish, and  whose  loving  kindness  is  over  all  His  works.      If 


122  THE  NICENE  CREED. 


we  ascend  into  heaven  He  is  there  ;  if  we  make  our  bed  in 
hell,  behold  He  is  there  also  !  In  the  hand  of  God  the 
Father  Almighty  the  Nicene  Creed  leaves  the  whole  subject 
of  eternity,  simply  teaching  us  to  look  for  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come.  Let  us  not 
fail  to  remember  that  modern  theories  of  the  future  life, 
whether  they  are  revolting  from  their  frightful  ingenuity,  or 
morally  enervating  from  their  lack  of  seriousness,  are  no 
part  of  Christianity. 

In  what  has  just  been  said  of  the  impossibility  of  trans- 
ferring to  eternicy  the  terminology  which  is  appropriate  to 
time  only,  I  have  suggested  to  you  the  ground  of  a  distinc- 
tion betwr-en  the  articles  of  the  Creed,  which  I  shall  now 
endeavor  to  make  clear  to  you.  In  my  first  lecture  I  re- 
ferred to  the  popular  notion  that  the  essential  articles  of 
the  Christian  Faith,  that  is,  as  we  now  understand,  of  that 
Faith  as  defined  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  are  all  propounded  in 
the  same  dogmatic  way,  and  are  all  intended  to  be  held  in 
the  same  way.  In  that  lecture  I  went  so  far  as  to  say  that 
nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth.  I  said  that  the 
dogmas  of  the  Christian  Faith  are  few;  and  that  statement,  I 
submit  to  you,  has  been  sufficiently  proved,  since  every  one 
of  those  dogmas  is  contained  in  so  brief  a  formula  as  the 
Nicene  Creed.  But  I  said  further  that  these  comparative- 
ly few  dogmas  are  diff'erent  in  character,  and  that  some  of 
them  are  not  pure  dogmas  at  all,  but  illustrative  paraboli- 
cal suggestions  of  divine  truths  which  human  language  can- 
not perfectly  express,  because  imperfect  human  reason  can- 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  123 

not  perfectly  comprehend  them.  I  think  you  will  have  no 
difficulty  in  perceiving  the  justice  of  this  statement,  if  you 
observe  the  plain  fact  that  the  declarations  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  fall  within  three  distinct  categories.  The  first  of 
these  contains  statements  of  eternal  truths,  that  is  of  truths 
existing  from  eternity  and  in  eternity  ;  the  second  contains 
statements  of  facts  which  have  occurred,  or  are  yet  to  oc- 
cur, in  time;  and  the  third  includes  statements  which  relate 
both  to  time  and  to  eternity.  Manifestly,  since  all  our  lan- 
guage is  the  language  of  time,  whatever  we  say  concerning 
eternal  Persons  or  eternal  operations  must  be  said  imper- 
fectly, or,  in  other  words,  it  can  be  only  suggestively,  not 
literally  and  exactly,  true.  This  subject  is  indeed  most 
difficult ;  and  I  should  not  venture  to  speak  of  it,  if  I  did 
not  know  that  not  a  little  scepticism  is  caused  by  a  misun- 
derstanding of  it,  or  rather  by  a  misconception  of  it.  Let 
me  endeavor,  then,  as  simply  as  \  can,  to  explain  what  I 
believe  to  be  the  truth  of  it,  and  this  I  shall  do  perhaps  to 
most  advantage  by  showing  how  completely  men  fail,  and 
must  fail,  in  every  attempt  to  define  what  is  eternal  in  the 
terms  of  time. 

Whenever  men  undertake  to  define  the  one  only  Eternal 
Being,  they  insensibly  fall  into  the  language  of  negation.  A 
striking  instance  of  this  is  the  definition  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly's  Catechism,  in  which  God  is  defined  to  be 
*■■  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  His  being, 
^in  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness  and  truth." 
Now,  this  is  sublime  ;  but  if  we  remember  that  we  do  not 
know  what  a  Spirit  is,  but  only  that  it  is  not  a  material  be- 


124  THE  NICENE  CREED. 

ing,  and  if  we  remember  that  by  eternal  we  simply  mean  not 
temporal,  that  is,  not  limited  by  time  conditions,  the  whole 
proposition  becomes  one  continuous  negation  from  begin- 
ning to  end.  Its  meaning  is  this:  that  God  is  not  a  mate- 
rial being,  that  He  is  not  subject  to  conditions  of  space  or 
time,  that  He  is  not  capable  of  mutation,  and  that  all  these 
negations  apply  at  once  to  Himself  and  to  all  His  attributes. 
Much  in  the  same  way,  the  First  of  the  Thirty  Nine  Arti- 
cles says  that  God  is  *' without  body,  parts  or  passions  ;  " 
which  is  simply  a  threefold  negation.  Mr.  Spencer  himself, 
in  the  very  act  of  affirming  the  existence  of  a  Power  beyond 
the  forces  and  phenomena  of  nature,  falls  into  a  double  ne- 
gation when  he  says  that  Power  is  "inscrutable"  and  that 
it  is  "  without  beginning  or  end."  Could  there  be  a  more 
striking  proof  of  the  incapacity  of  human  language  to  de- 
fine the  Eternal  than  the  fact  that  when  men  attempt  to  tell 
what  the  Eternal  is,  they  are  constrained  rather  to  tell  what 
it  is  not  ?  Nay,  if  they  express  themselves  in  positive  terms, 
they  use  those  terms  in  some  exceptional  and  peculiar  sense. 
Thus,  when  the  Nicene  Creed  itself  declares  that  God  is 
"almighty,"  it  does  not  mean  that  God  can  do  anything 
whatsoever,  as,  for  instance,  that  He  can  accomplish  an  ab- 
surdity or  realize  a  contradiction.  Thus  we  find  that  the 
only  adjective  applied  to  God  by  the  Nicene  Creed  is  true, 
indeed,  but  true  in  a  materially  qualified  and  restricted 
sense. 

If  it  be  true,  as  it  is,  that  we  can  never  by  searching  find 
out  God,  it  is  much  more  certain  that  human  speech  can- 
not tell  perfectly  or  even  accurately  what  He  is.     The  ut- 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  125 


most  that  is  possible  for  us  is  to  learn  something  con- 
cerning Him,  and  to  express  that  something  in  such  ap- 
proximately appropriate  terms  or  symbols  as  are  supplied 
by  human  language.  I  believe,  for  instance,  that  one  of 
the  most  striking  evidences  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
Faith  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  as  it  is  set  forth  in 
the  Nicene  Creed,  a  doctrine  which,  to  my  mind,  recon- 
ciles all  the  science  of  the  present  age  with  Christianity, 
because  it  furnishes  the  missing  link  between  them.  But 
how  does  the  Creed  define  the  triune  being  of  God  ?  Not, 
most  assuredly,  in  such  a  string  of  paradoxes  as  we  find  in 
the  so-called  Athanasian  Creed,  nor,  in  a  rhyming  arithmet- 
ical word-puzzle,  ''Three  in  One  and  One  in  Three," 
such  as  I  have  heard  poor  little  children  taught  to  sing  in 
a  Church  Sunday  School.  The  Nicene  Creed  was  not 
framed  to  perplex  but  to  instruct,  and  it  teaches  men  to 
believe  in  the  Triune  God  precisely  as  Christ  Himself 
taught,  that  is,  in  the  language  of  symbol.  It  speaks,  as  He 
spake,  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit;  and  what  symbol- 
ism is  here  !  If  we  had  here  to  do  only  with  the  character 
of  God,  the  symbol  of  human  fatherhood,  in  however  lofty 
a  sense,  would  fall  far  short  of  the  fulness  of  divine  benev- 
olence, and  therefore,  even  in  that  sense,  it  would  be  only 
an  imperfect  symbol  or  illustration  of  a  reality  which  tran- 
scends human  knowledge  and  human  understanding.  But 
when  we  speak  in  the  Creed  of  God  the  Father,  in  distinc- 
tion from  God  the  Son,  it  is  not  of  His  character  that  we 
are  speaking,  but  of  the  mode  of  His  divine  being,  in 
which  there  is  a  Father,  and  a  Son,  begotten  of  the  Father, 


126  'THE  NICENE  CREED. 


and  a  Spirit  proceeding  from  the  Father.  No  doubt  this 
language  is  the  very  best  that  could  be  chosen,  since  it  is 
the  language  of  our  Lord  Himself.  Yet  we  must  not  for- 
get that  it  is  human  language;  nor  must  we  forget  that  it 
is  the  language  of  parabolic  symbol,  not  the  language  of 
exact  definition.  The  fatherhood  known  to  human  beings 
is  part  of  a  complex  relationship  between  separate  individ- 
uals, v\^hich  has  no  place  in  the  unity  of  God.  Genera- 
tion, as  it  is  known  to  men,  is  an  operation  which  takes 
place  in  time;  and  when  we  apply  that  word  to  a  fact 
existing  in  the  Godhead,  we  must  see  that  we  do  not  fall 
into  the  heresy  of  Arius,  who  thought  of  it  as  an  event,  and 
therefore  said  that,  since  the  Son  is  begotten  of  the  Father, 
there  must  have  been  a  time  when  He  was  begotten,  and 
therefore  a  time,  still  more  remote,  when  He  was  not;  for- 
getting that  in  the  eternal  Godhead  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  an  event,  and  no  such  thing  as  time.  Just  so,  the  word 
Spirit  is  a  picture  word  in  itself,  and  when  we  say  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  we  say  only  half 
the  truth,  since  the  same  Spirit  abideth  in  the  Father.  I 
trust  you  will  endeavor  to  understand  that  I  am  trying  to 
remove  a  difficulty,  surely  not  to  make  one.  When  I 
come  to  our  next  lecture,  I  hope  to  show  you  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  the  only  doctrine  of  God 
that  is  sufficient,  or  even  credible,  in  these  times.  But 
just  now  I  wish  to  impress  you  with  the  truth  that  the 
eternal  things  of  God  cannot  be  exactly  defined  in  human 
language,  and  that  not  only  the  Church  but  our  Blessed 
Lord  Himself  has  been  constrained  to  use  the  language  of 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  127 


symbol  in  revealing  all  we  know  of  Him  in  Whose  Eternal 
Unity  are  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  In  thinking  of 
these  symbolic  words  we  must  remember  that  they  are 
symbols,  and  that  these  symbols  are  necessary  because 
exact  definition  is  not  possible.  If  we  would  rightly  un- 
derstand them,  we  must  banish  every  thought  of  time,  and 
strive  to  realize  the  truth  of  an  eternal  relation  so  intimate 
that  while  the  Son  is  of  the  Father,  and  not  the  Father  of 
the  Son,  their  unity  is  perfect;  and  while  the  eternal  Spirit 
proceedeth  from  the  Father,  and  not  contrariwise  the  Fa- 
ther from  the  Spirit,  yet,  neither  in  time  nor  in  eternity  can 
they  be  disunited.  Never  forget  that  the  unity  of  God  is 
the  first  article  of  the  Christian  Faith.  We  begin  our  con- 
fession by  declaring  that  "we  believe  in  one  God."  Re- 
member, therefore,  that  any  conception  of  the  Blessed  Trin- 
ity which  is  clearly  inconsistent  with  the  indivisible  unity 
of  God,  is  ipso  facto  condemned  as  a  false  conception.  If, 
then,  it  has  ever  seemed  to  you  that  the  symbolic  language 
of  the  Creed  implies  a  contradiction  of  the  unity  of  God,  be- 
lieve me  you  have  utterly  misunderstood  it,  and  that,  per- 
haps, because  you  have  forgotten  that  it  is  symbolical  and 
illustrative,  not  the  language  of  exact  definition. 

While  we  are  bound  to  avoid  straining  the  symbolical 
language  of  the  Creed  lest  we  should  impart  a  meaning  into 
it  which  it  was  never  meant  to  bear,  we  must  not  less  care- 
fully avoid  all  tampering  with  the  reality  of  facts  which,  hav- 
ing occurred  in  time,  are  capable  of  being  plainly  stated,  in 
human  language.     There  have  been  signs,  of  late,  of  a  dis- 


128  THE  NICENE  CREED. 

position  to  deny,  or  to  e::plain  away,  at  least  two  statements 
of  fact  which  are  plainly  enunciated  in  the  Creeds. 

When  the  Apostles'  Creed  says  that  the  Son  of  God  ' '  was 
conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (and)  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,"  it  is  silly  and  dishonest  to  pretend  that  this  means 
nothing  more  than  that  He  was  conceived,  as  all  men  are, 
by  the  agency  of  vital  energies  which  are  derived  from  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  Giver  of  life.  A  Creed,  like  a  law,  must 
be  interpreted  consistently  with  the  intention  of  the  authority 
which  sets  it  forth;  and  nothing  is  more  certain  than  this, 
that  the  Churches  which  set  forth  the  Apostles'  Creed  have 
always  intended  and  still  intend  that  pregnant  sentence  to 
mean  that  our  Lord  was  conceived,  as  no  mere .  man  ever 
was,  by  the  direct,  and  special  intervention  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  I  can  think  of  nothing  more  dishonest  than  to 
palter  in  a  double  sense  with  plain  words  on  so  sacred  a 
subject.  I  admit  that  it  is  necessary,  nay  essential,  to  dis- 
embarrass Christianity  of  every  needless  difficulty.  That, 
indeed,  is  no  small  part  of  the  duty  of  the  Christian  apologist 
\  at  this  time.  But  the  pretended  apologist  who  takes  away 
one  fragment  of  the  faith  itself,  under  the  pretext  of  re- 
moving difficulties,  is  no  apologist,  but  an  assailant  in  dis- 
guise. Let  there,  then,  be  no  misapprehension  of  this  point: 
he  who  denies  that  Jesus  Christ  was  ''conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  "  in  the  plain  sense  of  those  words  as  they  are  used  in 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  or  that  ''  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God, 
by  Whom  all  things  were  made,"  "  came  down  from  heaven, 
and  was  incarnate  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary," 
in  the  plain  sense  of  those  words,  as  they  are  used  in  the 
Nicene  Creed,  denies  the  Christian  Faith. 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  129 

I  am  bound  to  be  not  less  explicit  with  regard  to  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord,  concerning  which  both  the  Creeds 
declare  that  on  "  the  third  day  (after  His  death  upon  the 
cross)  He  rose  again  from  the  dead. "  It  is  not  honest  to 
interpret  these  words  in  any  sense  less  significant  than  they 
obviously  bear  in  those  Creeds.  That  they  may  mean  far 
more  is  more  than  possible.  St.  Paul  declares  that  the  body 
which  is  buried  in  the  grave  is  like  ''bare  grain  "  sown  in 
the  ground;  it  is  ^'not  that  body  that  shall  be"  in  the 
resurrection.  "There  is  a  natural  body,"  he  says,  "and 
there  is  a  spiritual  body ;  "  and  he  tells  us  that  the  spiritual 
body  of  those  who  are  raised  from  the  dead  is  to  be  made 
like  unto  the  glorious  Resurrection  Body  of  Christ.  Now, 
all  we  read  of  Christ's  appearances  after  His  resurrection 
goes  to  show  that  His  Body  was  no  longer  what  it  had  been, 
nor  as  it  had  been,  before  His  death.  It  had  all  the  powers 
and  faculties  of  a  material  body.  It  bore  unquestionable 
marks  of  its  identity  with  that  very  Body  which  was  crucified; 
and  yet  it  was  subject  to  no  material  disabilities  or  restraints. 
It  is  idle,  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  as  profane  as  idle,  to 
attempt  to  theorize  upon  this  subject.  But  to  deny  the  fact 
of  Christ's  real  and  bodily  resurrection  from  the  dead  is  to 
deny  more  than  a  single  article  of  Christianity;  it  is  to  reject 
the  foundation  stone  on  which  the  truth  of  Christ's  religion 
rests.  If  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  Christianity  an  empty 
dream. 

Yet  I  should  hardly  be  justified  in  omitting  to  remind  you 
that  in  the  conception  of  Christ,  and  also  in  His  resurrection, 
there  was  a  meeting  of  the  temporal  and  the  eternal;  in  the 


130  THE  NICENE  CREED. 

one  case  an  entering  of  the  eternal  into  the  limitations  of 
time,  and  space,  and  matter,  and  in  the  other  a  withdraw- 
al of  the  eternal  from  those  limitations.  Now,  w-e  do  not 
know  what  time  is,  nor  what  space  is,  nor  what  matter  is. 
For  my  part,  I  believe,  as  many  others  do,  that  time,  and 
space,  and  matter  are  representative  illusions,  which  only 
imperfectly  represent  realities  which  we  can  never  rightly 
know  in  this  world.  Consequently  I  believe  that  alike  in 
the  incarnation  and  in  the  resurrection  there  was  an  ex- 
hibition of  divine  operations  under  the  illusory  conditions 
in  the  midst  of  which  our  human  life  is  lived.  I  believe, 
therefore,  that  both  of  these  transactions  and  the  whole  Life 
that  lay  between  them  must  have  been  more,  and  must  have 
meant  more,  than  it  has  entered  into  the  mind  of  man  to 
think.  In  this  life  we  must  be  content  to  know  things  as 
they  seem.  While  we  are  men  on  earth,  bound  by  time 
conditions,  and  informed  by  sense  perceptions  which  are  so 
largely  illusions,  we  must  be  satisfied  to  know  in  part,  and 
according  to  the  limitations  with  which  we  are  encompassed. 
It  was  one  of  the  weaknesses  of  a  strong  man  that  made 
Matthew  Arnold  so  constantly  cry  out  against  anthropo- 
morphism. Over  and  over  again  he  moaned,  ''We  never 
know  how  anthropomorphic  w^e  are  !  "  What  else  than  an- 
thropomorphic should  we  be  ?  What  else  can  we  be  t  We 
are  human  beings,  that  is  we  belong  to  the  genus  homo  or 
avBpa)7to<ij  we  can  know  nothing  at  all  as  it  appears  to  crea- 
tures organized  as  man  is.  Our  thoughts  are  all  picture 
forms,  that  is  nopcpdiy  of  things  as  we  perceive  them.  What 
else,   then,   can  they  be  than  anthropomorphic  .?     Let  us 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  131 

grant,  as  we  surely  must,  that  we  see  nothing  as  it  is, 
that  light  and  color,  for  example,  are  not  beyond  us,  as  we 
picture  them  to  ourselves,  but  within  our  eyes,  and  nowhere 
else.  Shall  we  therefore  close  our  eyes  and  refuse  to  see 
things  as  we  may  and  can  ?  Shall  we  refuse  to  study  them 
because  our  utmost  studies  fall  short  of  perfect  knowledge  ? 
Would  Mr.  Arnold  have  advised  us  to  do  that.?  Or,  in 
philosophy,  would  he  have  counselled  us  not  to  think, 
because  our  thoughts  are  necessarily  founded  on  illusive 
sense-perceptions  .?  It  was  only  in  religion  that  Mr.  Arnold 
found  anthropomorphism  to  be  intolerable;  but  he  con- 
sidered it  reprehensible  in  men  to  conceive  of  the  nature  or 
operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  after  the  only  fashion  of 
spiritual  being  that  is  known  to  man,  that  is,  the  spirit  that 
IS  in  himself  If  there  be  such  a  Divine  Spirit  at  all,  and  if 
It  can  at  all  be  revealed  to  man,  then  both  the  nature  and 
the  operation  of  that  Spirit  can  be  revealed  to  man  only  in 
such  fashion  as  a  man  can  apprehend.  Call  that  appre- 
hension anthropomorphic,  if  you  will;  it  is  analogous  to 
every  other  human  apprehension  of  the  universe  in  which 
man  lives  and  of  the  things  and  persons  it  contains.  So, 
returning  to  the  Incarnation  and  the  Resurrection  of  the 
Only  Begotten  Son  of  God,  I  do  not  know  what  these 
events  were,  nor  how  they  appeared,  on  the  other  side  of 
the  impenetrable  veil  which  divides  time,  space  and  matter 
from  eternity;  but  on  this  side  they  were  manifested  as  the 
Creeds  declare.  The  Son  of  God  ''was  incarnate  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  made  Man,  was 
crucified,  dead  and  buried,  descended  into  hell,  and  the 
third  day  rose  again  according  to  the  Scriptures." 


132  THE  NICENE  CREED. 


If  I  have  been  at  all  able  to  carry  your  thoughts  along 
with  me,  I  think  you  must  surely  have  understood  that  my 
design  is  not  to  minimize  the  Christian  Faith  in  any  way 
whatever,  but  to  deepen  and  intensify  your  sense  of  its  pro- 
found significance.  When  it  speaks  of  eternal  realities  in 
a  language  of  symbol  borrowed  from  the  conditions  under 
which  we  live  in  this  world,  we  are  to  remember  that  such 
language  must  fall  very  far  short  of  the  divine  truth  it  is  in- 
tended to  suggest,  and  therefore  must  not  be  so  strained  as 
to  belittle  or  belie  that  truth.  When  it  speaks  of  sublime 
transactions,  manifested  to  the  eyes  of  men  and  yet  pertain- 
ing also  to  eternity,  we  are  not  to  think  that  those  transac- 
tions were  less  than  they  appeared  to  human  apprehension, 
but  rather  that  in  the  eternal  world  they  must  have  been 
and  seemed  incomparably  more.  And  now  I  submit  to 
you  that  when  the  same  Creed  speaks  of  a  fact  or  an  object 
which  actually  exists  in  time,  it  is  not  permissible  to  treat 
that  fact  or  object  in  any  other  sense  than  that  in  which  the 
framers  of  the  Creed  intended  it  to  be  understood.  Hence 
when  the  Creed  declares  that  one  article  of  the  Christian 
Faith  is  to  believe  "in  one,  holy,  catholic  and  apostolic 
Church,''  I  think  you  must  admit  that  it  is  a  part  of  Chris- 
tianity to  believe  at  least  so  much  as  that. 

If  we  ask  ourselves  what  the  fathers  of  the  Church  meant 
when  they  professed  that  faith,  I  do  not  think  we  can  go 
far  astray  in  the  answer.  W^hen  the  Nicene  Creed  was  set 
forth,  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  was  an  existing  institu- 
tion which  was  easily  identified,  because  there  was  nothing 
else  in  the  world  which  pretended  to  be  the  Catholic  Church, 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  133 


There  was  then  one  body  holding  everywhere  the  same 
faith,  celebrating  everywhere  the  same  sacraments,  teaching 
everywhere  the  same  code  of  morals,  everywhere  officered 
and  governed  in  substantially  the  same  manner,  everywhere 
claiming  to  be  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  of  Christ  ; 
and  there  was  only  one  such  body.  Wherever  a  different 
faith  was  taught,  or  different  rites  were  practised,  those  who 
held  to  the  universal  faith  and  worship  were  catholics,  and 
those  who  introduced  or  practised  novelties  were  not  catho- 
lics. The  former  were  in  the  Church;  the  latter  had  neither 
part  nor  lot  in  its  affairs.  Concerning  the  government  of 
the  Church  there  was  no  disagreement.  With  many  local 
variations  in  subordinate  matters,  substantially  the  same  con- 
stitution existed  wherever  the  Church  was  found.  In  every 
local  Church  there  was  a  bishop,  and  only  one,  surrounded 
by  his  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  in  no  Church  would  the 
bishop  or  his  people  have  been  satisfied  of  his  ministerial  au- 
thority, if  they  had  not  believed  that  his  commission  had 
been  derived  from  men  whose  predecessors  had  been  com- 
missioned by  the  Apostles  of  Christ.  The  ecumenical  Coun- 
cils did  not  create  these  facts.  They  were  facts  for  centu- 
ries before  one  single  ecumenical  council  had  been  held. 
All  that  the  ecumenical  Councils  did  was  to  accept  them 
and  respect  them  as  they  were.  The  ecumenical  Councils 
made  certain  regulations  for  the  preservation  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Church  as  it  already  existed;  they  neither  en- 
couraged nor  tolerated  innovations;  they  refused  judicially 
to  change  the  customs  of  particular  Churches ;  from  the 
Council  of  Nicsea  downwards  their  consistent  language  was, 


X34  THE  NICE NE  CREED, 


"  Let  the  ancient  customs  prevail. "  The  ecumenical  Coun- 
cils would  have  utterly  refused  to  authorize  or  sanction  any 
other  constitution  than  that  which  was  substantially  universal 
in  the  Church.  They  would  have  wasted  no  time  in  asking 
whether  the  proposed  constitution  might,  or  might  not,  be 
theoretically  a  good  one.  For  them  it  would  have  stood 
condemned  by  the  single  fact  that  it  was  new.  They  would 
simply  have  said,  "We  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the 
Churches  of  God."  In  the  same  way,  if  it  had  been  pro- 
posed to  dispense  with  any  part  of  the  universally  existing 
constitution,  they  would  have  wasted  no  time  in  inquiring 
whether  that  part  of  the  constitution  was  or  was  not  indis- 
pensable to  the  being  of  a  Church.  They  would  simply 
have  said,  "  Let  the  ancient  customs  prevail."  In  follow- 
ing the  immemorial  and  universal  customs  of  the  holy 
Church  throughout  all  the  world,  no  one  could  take  damage; 
in  departing  from  them,  no  man  could  be  sure  that  he  was 
not  maK-ing  a  beginning  of  divisions  in  the  Body  of  Christ. 
It  was  one  great  misfortune  of  the  Reformation  that  this 
conservatism  of  the  ecumenical  Councils  was  so  widely  for- 
gotten, and  that  novelties  of  order  and  organization  were 
then  and  afterwards  introduced  into  various  Churches. 
Surely  there  is  both  warning  and  instruction  in  the  fact  that, 
in  our  own  generation,  one  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  a  res- 
toration of  unity  among  Christians,  who  have  no  longer  any 
other  cause  of  separation  from  each  other,  is  that  the  fore- 
fathers of  some  of  them,  one  hundred,  two  hundred  or 
three  hundred  years  ago,  chose  to  adopt  Church  Constitu- 
tions unknown  to  the  customs  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 


THE  NICENE  CREED.  I35 

at  any  previous  epoch  of  its  whole  existence.  I  think  we 
must  admit  that  when  a  step  has  been  taken  which  has 
manifestly  led  to  ill  results,  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  re- 
trace that  step;  and  therefore  I  think  the  Lambeth  Confer- 
ence was  wise  in  laying  it  down  as  one  of  the  indispensable 
steps  to  Christian  Unity  that  * '  the  Historic  Episcopate " 
must  be  everywhere  accepted.  In  so  doing  the  Anglican 
Bishops  did  what  the  ecumenical  Councils  would  have  done. 
Even  the  ecumenical  Councils  never  pretended  to  dispense 
with  the  immemorial  customs  of  the  One,  Holy,  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church.  All  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Anglican 
Communion  have  done  is  to  refuse  to  assume  a  power  to 
which  the  ecumenical  Councils  did  not  pretend. 

But  here  we  must  note  another  particular  in  which  the 
Lambeth  Conference  most  wisely  followed  in  the  footsteps 
of  the  ecumenical  Councils.  Those  venerable  Councils, 
when  they  declared  it  to  be  an  article  of  the  Christian  Faith 
to  believe  in  ''one,  holy,  catholic  and  apostolic  Church," 
undoubtedly  referred  to  the  historic  Church,  with  its  historic 
constitution  as  a  fact,  and  an  unalterable  fact,  of  historical 
Christianity.  But  in  this,  as  in  so  many  other  things,  they 
did  not  enter  into  theory;  and  I  am  thoroughly  convinced 
that  if  they  had  tried  to  frame  a  theory  on  that  subject,  they 
would  hopelessly  have  failed.  At  all  events,  they  set  forth 
no  theory;  and  consequently  no  theory  of  the  constitution 
of  the  Christian  Church  has  one  particle  of  authority  from  the 
Nicene  Creed.  The  Lambeth  Conference  likewise  framed 
no  theory  on  that  subject,  and  it  is  much  to  be  regret- 
ted that  some  of  its  members;   few  in  number  and  by  no 


136  THE  NICENE  CREED, 

means  conspicuous  either  for  learning  or  for  authority,  have 
had  the  hardihood  to  publish  expositions  of  the  intention  of 
that  conference  which  are  at  variance  with  the  language  of 
the  Conference  itself  Among  those  who  hold  as  strongly 
to  the  historic  episcopate  as  these  self-constituted  expositors 
of  its  meaning  are  many  who  hold  quite  irreconcilable  theo- 
ries concerning  it;  and  if  a  future  Lambeth  Conference  were 
to  attempt  to  put  forward  a  consistent  theory  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Catholic  Church,  I  venture  to  think  that  it 
would  fail  egregiously.  I  am  sure  that  it  ought  to  fail,  be- 
cause it  would  be  trying  to  do  more  than  the  Catholic 
Church  itself  has  ever  done  or  tried  to  do.  It  would  be  trying 
to  erect  a  theory  as  an  article  of  faith;  and  in  the  very  act  of 
seeking  to  promote  the  cause  of  unity,  it  would  be  raising 
an  unnecessary  barrier  of  division  between  Christian  people. 
I  have  spoken  of  this  subject  at  more  length  than  I  might 
otherwise  have  done,  because  I  believe  that  it  may  be  of 
service  to  you  to  know  how  truly  Catholic  is  the  position 
taken  by  the  Lambeth  Conference  in  reference  to  it,  and  how 
admirably  it  has  kept  within  Catholic  lines  in  standing  firmly 
for  the  Catholic  Church  as  that  Church  was  known  and  rec- 
ognized by  the  ecumenical  Councils,  without  adding  one 
syllable  of  theory  to  the  language  of  the  Creeds.  I  have 
thought  it  the  more  necessary  to  do  so,  because  I  believe 
that  Christian  Unity  will  never  be  restored  in  this  world  on 
any  other  than  the  Chalcedonian  basis  of  unswerving  fidelity 
to  the  Catholic  Faith  and  unlimited  liberty  in  all  other 
particulars;  and,  until  Christian  Unity  shall  be  restored 
upon  that  basis,  Christianity  will  lack  the  noblest  evidence 


THE  NICENE  CREED,  137 

of  its  divine  authority.  It  was  our  Lord  Himself  Who 
prayed  ''that  they  may  all  be  one,  that  the  world  may  be- 
lieve that  Thou  hast  sent  Me." 

It  is  needless  to  recapitulate  at  any  great  length  the  par- 
ticulars of  the  investigation  of  the  Chalcedonian  Decree 
which  we  have  now  concluded.  In  establishing  the  Nicene 
Creed  as  the  sole  and  sufficient  exposition  of  the  Christian 
Faith,  that  decree,  which  the  whole  Christian  world  so  sig- 
nally ratified,  did  not  only  provide  a  touchstone  of  dan- 
gerous error;  it  established  the  citadel  of  Christianity.  It 
made  Christianity  unassailable  on  any  possible  ground  of 
scientific  discovery,  or  on  any  conceivable  ground  of  criti- 
cal research.  It  excluded  from  it  false  philosophies  of  the 
Divine  Decrees,  and  presumptuous  doctrines  of  future  pun- 
ishment. It  set  forth  a  summary  of  truths  which  Christ 
Himself  taught  concerning  the  Divine  Being,  and  it  mod- 
estly set  forth  those  truths  in  the  picture  language  which 
our  Lord  Himself  had  used.  It  told  the  marvellous  facts 
of  His  Incarnation,  Passion,  Death,  Burial,  Resurrection  and 
Ascension  plainly,  in  the  sober  terms  of  historic  statement, 
but  without  attempting  to  expound  the  hidden  and  eter- 
nal mysteries  which  those  events  must  beyond  all  doubt  have 
included.  It  neither  set  forth  nor  allowed  scientific  schemes 
of  the  plan  of  salvation  which  is  known  to  God  alone, 
nor  any  hard  and  fast  theories  of  the  operations  of  divine 
grace  either  directly  to  the  personal  soul  or  mediately 
through  the  sacraments.  And  lastly,  it  held  fast  to  the 
historic  Church  of  Christ,   the  ark  of  safety  to  them  that 


138  '^he;  nicene  creed, 

enter  it,  hailing  it  as  one,  holy,  catholic  and  apostolic,  yet, 
with  all  this,  neither  pretending  to  define  what  is  necessary 
to  the  being  of  a  Church  nor  allowing  anything  to  be  dis- 
pensed with  which  the  ancient  customs  of  the  Universal 
Church  had  held  and  practised  from  the  times  of  the  Apos- 
tles. Christianity  has  never  been  improved  by  adding  to 
the  Faith  as  thus  defined.  Every  unauthorized  definition 
has  served  only  to  expose  it  to  new  forms  of  assault.  In 
the  present  times  there  is  good  need  that  the  Christian  Faith 
should  be  discriminated  from  unauthorized  additions.  I 
.trust  that  the  way  of  strength  and  safety  may  modestly  be 
recognized  by  those  to  whom  the  defense  of  the  Faith  has 
been  committed;  and  the  way  of  strength  and  safety  has  not 
now  to  be  discovered.  It  was  marked  out  many  centuries 
ago  by  the  wisdom  of  universal  Christendom  in  the  formu- 
lation of  the  Chalcedonian  Decree. 


LECTURE   V. 

THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE  IS  THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OB' 
CHRISTIANITY. 


LECTURE   V. 

THE    GOD    OF    SCIENCE    IS     THE    TRIUNE     GOD     OF 
CHRISTIANITY. 

The  fool  halh  said  in  his  heart,  There  is  no  God. — Psalm  xiv.  i. 

In  Him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being;  as  certain  also  of 
your  own  poets  have  said,  For  we  are  also  His  offspring. — St.  Paul, 
Acts  xvii.  28. 

There  is  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through 
all  and  in  you  all.— Eph.  iv.  6. 

No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He  hath  declared  Him. — ^JOHN  i.  18. 

The  Spirit  of  Truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father. — John  xv.  26. 

A  little  philosophy  inclineth  men's  minds  to  atheism;  but  depth  in 
philosophy  bringeth  men's  minds  about  to  religion. — Bacon. 

No  inductive  conclusions  are  more  than  probable, — Jevons. 

In  spite  of  its  immense  difficulty  of  application,  and  the  aspersions 
which  have  been  mistakenly  cast  upon  it,  the  theory  of  probabilities,  is 
the  noblest,  as  it  will  in  course  of  time  prove  perhaps  the  most  fruitful, 
branch  of  mathematical  science.  Is  is  the  very  guide  of  life,  and  hardly 
can  we  take  a  step  or  make  a  decision  of  any  kind  without,  correctly 
or  incorrectly,  making  an  estimation  of  probabilities.  .  .  .  The 
whole  cogency  of  inductive  reasoning,  as  applied  to  science,  rests  upon 
probability.  —Ibid. 

What  I  mean  by  the  rationality  of  a  belief  in  any  hypothesis  is  its  fit- 
ness to  be  accepted  and  acted  upon  because  it  has  in  its  favor  the  strong- 
est probabilities  of  the  case,  so  far  as  we  can  grasp  these  probabilities. 
I  know  of  no  other  foundation  for  a  belief  in  anything;  for  belief  is  the 
acceptance  by  the  mind  of  some  proposition,  statement,  or  supposed 
fact,  the  truth  of  which  depends  upon  evidence  addressed  to  our  senses, 
or  to  our  intellectual  perceptions,  or  to  both. — George  Ticknor 
Curtis, 

141 


142  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 


The  one  act  of  faith  in  the  convert  to  science,  is  the  confession  of  the 
universality  of  order,  and  of  the  absolute  vaUdity,  in  all  times,  and  under 
all  circumstances,  of  the  law  of  causation.  This  confession  is  an  act  of 
faith,  because,  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  truth  of  such  propositions 
is  not  susceptible  of  proof.— Huxley. 

The  very  rationality  of  the  creation,  in  our  deepest  analysis  and  broad- 
est survey  of  it,  leads  the  mind,  by  the  conditions  inseverable  from  its 
reasoning  faculties,  to  see  in  its  perfect  relations  the  inevitable  congruity 
of  its  intelligent  Cause.  And  all  this,  be  it  observed,  results  after  science 
has  disclosed  the  splendid  treasures  of  its  knowledge,  the  beauty  and 
indisputable  accuracjf  of  its  methods,  and  the  new  senses  with  which  it 
has  endowed  itself  by  its  instruments. — Dallinger. 

It  [the  dissipation  of  energy]  enables  us  distinctly  to  say  that  the  pres- 
ent order  of  thmgs  has  not  been  evolved  through  infinite  past  time  by 
the  agency  of  laws  now  at  work,  but  must  have  had  a  distinctive  be- 
ginning, a  state  beyond  which  we  are  totally  unable  to  penetrate,  a 
state,  in  fact,  which  must  have  been  produced  by  other  than  now 
[visibly]  acting  causes. — Professor  Tait. 

If  this  theory  [of  the  dissipation  of  heat]  be  true,  physical  science  in- 
stead of  giving  any  countenance  to  the  notion  of  matter  having  existed 
from  eternity,  distinctly  teaches  that  creation  took  place,  that  the  pres- 
ent system  of  nature  and  its  laws  originated,  at  an  approximately  as- 
signable date  in  the  past. — PROFESSOR  Flint. 

None  of  the  processes  of  nature,  since  the  time  when  nature  began, 
have  produced  the  shghtest  difference  in  any  molecule.  We  are  there- 
fore unable  to  ascribe  either  the  existence  of  the  molecules  or  the  identity 
of  their  properties  to  the  operation  of  any  of  the  causes  which  we  call 
natural.  On  the  other  hand,  the  exact  quality  of  each  molecule  to  all 
others  of  the  same  kind  gives  it,  as  Sir  John  Herschel  has  well  said,  the 
essential  character  of  "a  manufactured  article,"  and  precludes  th^  idea 
of  its  being  eternal  and  self-existent. — Professor  Clarke  Maxwell. 

Let  no  one  imagine  that,  should  we  ever  penetrate  this  mystery  [of  life], 
we  shall  thereby  be  enabled  to  reduce,  except  from  life,  even  the  lowest 
form  of  life.  "  Sir  W.  Thompson's  splendid  suggestion  of  vortex-atoms, 
if  it  be  correct,  will  make  us  thoroughly  to  understand  matter  and 
mathematically  to  investigate  all  its  properties.  Yet  its  very  basis  im- 
plies the  absolute  necessity  of  an  intervention  of  creative  power  to  form 
or  to  destroy  one  atom  of  even  dead  matter. — Professor  Tait. 

The  origin  or  cessation  of  rotation  in  a  perfect  fluid  must  be  the  effect 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  I43 

of  supernatural  action;  in  other  words,  every  vortex-atom  must  owe  the 
rotation  which  gives  it  its  individuality  to  a  divine  impulse. — Professor 
Flint. 

The  physical  laws  may  explain  the  inorganic  world,  the  biological 
laws  may  account  for  the  development  of  the  organic;  but  of  the  point 
where  they  meet,  of  that  strange  borderland  between  the  dead  and  the 
living,  science  is  silent.  It  is  as  if  God  had  placed  everything  in  earth 
and  heaven  in  the  hands  of  nature,  but  reserved  a  point  at  the  genesis 
of  life  for  His  direct  appearing.— Drummond. 

Men  of  science  will  frankly  admit  their  inability  to  point  to  any  satis- 
factory experimental  proof  that  life  can  be  developed  save  from  demon- 
strable antecedent  life. — Tyndal. 

Life  precedes  organization. — Huxley. 

In  the  materialistic  explanations  of  the  universe,  we  find  that  the 
formula  of  materialism  works  very  well  until  the  phenomena  of  con- 
sciousness emerge,  and  then  it  breaks  down.—  Iverach. 

Another  source  of  the  conviction  of  the  existence  of  God,  connected 
with  the  reason,  and  not  with  the  feelings,  impresses  me  as  having  much 
more  weight.  This  follows  from  the  extreme  difficulty,  or  rather,  im- 
possibility, of  conceiving  the  immense  and  wonderful  universe,  includ- 
ing man,  with  his  capacity  of  looking  far  backward  and  far  into  futurity, 
as  the  result  of  blind  chance  or  necessity. — Darwin,  Life  and  Letters, 
vol.  i.  312. 

You  have  expressed  my  inward  conviction,  though  far  more  vividly 
and  clearly  that  I  could  have  done,  that  the  universe  is  not  the  result 
of  chance. — Ibid,  vol.  1.  316. 

I  cannot  anyhow  be  contented  to  view  the  wonderful  universe,  and 
specially  the  nature  of  man,  and  to  conclude  that  everything  is  the  re- 
sult of  brute  force.  I  am  inclined  to  look  at  everything  as  resulting 
from  design  and  law. — Ibid,  vol.  ii.  312. 

Research  has  already  shown  us  reason  to  believe  "that  even  chemical 
atoms  are  very  complicated  structures,  that  an  atom  of  pure  iron  is 
probably  a  vastly  more  complicated  system  than  that  of  the  planets  and 
other  satellites,  that  each  constituent  of  a  chemical  atom  must  go 
through  an  orbit  in  the  millionth  part  of  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  in 
which  it  successively  or  simultaneously  is  under  ihe  influence  of  many 
other  constituents,  or  possibly  comes  into  collision  with  them,  and  that 
each  of  these  particles  is,  as  Sir  John  Herschel  has  beautifully  said,  for- 
ever solving  differential   equations  which,  if  written  out  in  full,  might 


144  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

perhaps  belt  the  earth."  Now,  what  does  this  mean,  if  not  that  every 
ultimate  atom,  is  full  to  the  very  heart  of  God,  and  that  every  particle 
of  dust  or  every  drop  of  water  is  crowded  with  traces  of  the  action  of  the 
Divine  Reason,  not  less  marvelous,  it  may  be,  than  those  which  astron- 
omy exhibits  in  the  structure  of  the  heavens,  and  the  evolution  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  ?— PROFESSOR  Flint. 

Then  came  the  age  of  physical  science Its   theory  of 

knowledge  was  a  crude  empiricism;  its  theology  unrelieved  deism.  God 
was  "throned  in  magnificent  inactivity  in  a  remote  corner  of  the  uni. 
verse,"  and  a  machinery  of  "second  causes  "  had  practically  taken  His 

place Meanwhile  His  immanence  in  nature,  the  "higher 

pantheism,"  which  is  a  truth  essential  to  true  religion,  as  it  is  to  true 

philosophy,  fell  into  the  background Darwinism,    under 

the  disguise  of  a  foe,  did  the  work  of  a  friend.  It  has  conferred  upon 
philosophy  and  religion  an  inestimable  benefit,  by  showing  us  that  we 
must  choose  between  two  alternatives.  Either  God  is  everywhere 
present  in  nature,  or  He  is  nowhere.  He  cannot  be  here,  and  not 
there.  He  cannot  delegate  His  power  to  demigods  called  "second 
causes."— Rev.  Aubrey  Moore,  M.  A. 

The  infinite  and  eternal  Power  that  is  manifested  in  every  pulsation 
of  the  universe  is  none  other  than  the  living  God. — Professor  Fiske. 

God  the  Father  is  the  ground  of  creation; 

God  the  Son  is  the  law  of  creation ; 

God  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  life  of  creation. 

God  the  Father  originates; 
God  the  Son  regulates; 
God  the  Holy  Ghost  actuates. 

God  the  Father  is  Deity  invisible; 
God  the  Son  is  Deity  manifested; 
God  the  Holy  Ghost  is  Deity  communicated. 

—Rev.  H.  V.  D.  Johns,  D.  D. 

Design,  purpose,  intention,  appear,  when  all  the  facts  of  the  universe 
are  studied  in  the  light  of  all  our  reasoning  faculties,  to  be  meradicable 
from  our  view  of  the  creation.  Teleology  does  not  now  depend  for  its  ex- 
istence on  Paleyan  "instances;"  but  all  the  universe,  its  whole  progress 
in  time  and  space,  is  one  majestic  evidence  of  teleology.     The  will  and 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  145 

purpose  running  through  it  are  as  incapable  of  being  shut  out  of  our 
consciousness  and  reasoning  faculties,  as  its  phenomena  and  their  modes 

are  of  being  rendered  wholly  imperceptible  by  our  senses 

The  teleology — that  is,  the  inseverable  motive,  as  it  were,  of  all  the 
activities  and  interactions  of  nature — must  be  the  product  of  mind. — Dr. 
Dallinger. 

There  is  a  wider  teleology,  which  is  not  touched  by  the  doctrine  of 
evolution,  but  is  actually  based  upon  the  fundamental  proposition  of 
evolution.  That  proposition  is  that  the  whole  world,  living  and  not 
living,  is  the  result  of  the  mutual  interaction,  according  to  definite  laws, 
of  the  forces  possessed  by  the  molecules  of  which  the  primitive  nebu- 
losity of  the  universe  was  composed.  If  this  be  true,  it  is  no  less  certain 
that  the  existing  world  lay  potentially  in  the  cosmic  vapor,  and  that  a 
sufficient  intelligence  could,  from  a  knowledge  of  the  properties  of  the 
molecules  of  that  vapor,  have  predicted,  say,  the  state  of  the  fauna  of 
Britain  in  1869,  with  as  much  certainty  as  one  can  say  what  will  happen 
to  the  vapor  of  breath  in  a  cold  winter's  day The  Ideo- 
logical and  mechanical  views  of  nature  are  not  necessarily  mutually 
exclusive.  On  the  contrary,  the  more  purely  a  mechanist  the  speculator 
is,  the  more  firmly  does  he  assume  the  primordial  molecular  arrange- 
ment of  which  all  the  phenomena  of  the  universe  are  the  consequences; 
and  the  more  completely  he  is  thereby  at  the  mercy  of  the  teleologist, 
who  can  always  defy  him  to  prove  that  this  primordial  molecular 
arrangement  was  not  intended  to  evolve  the  phenomena  of  the  universe. 
— Huxley. 

When  we  analyze  the  propositions  or  dogmatic  affirmations 
of  the  Nicene  Creed,  we  find  that  some  of  them  are  Theo- 
logical, that  is,  they  relate  to  the  being  and  nature  of  God; 
that  others  are  Christological,  that  is,  they  relate  to  the  nature 
and  work  of  Christ;  and  that  others  are  Anthropological, 
that  is,  they  relate  to  mankind.  In  the  present  lecture  we 
shall  confine  ourselves  to  the  Theological  group.  Before 
entering  upon  it,  however,  I  must  enter  a  formal  denial  of 
two  prevalent  opinions  which  I  hold  to  be  both  false  and 
mischievous. 


146  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

It  has  become  a  kind  of  habit  with  many  persons  to  talk 
about  the  scientific  method  of  research,  and  to  contrast  it 
with  the  religious  and  philosophical  method,  as  if  they  were 
entirely  different  from  each  other,  and  as  if  the  scientific 
method  resulted  in  a  certitude  which  cannot  be  attained  by 
the  religious  and  philosophical   method.     Both   of  these 
impressions  are  alike  untrue.     The  scientific  or  Baconian 
method  consists  in  ascertaining  facts  by  careful  observation, 
and  in  verifying  them  as  far  as  possible  by  decisive  experi- 
ments, before  attempting  to  explain  them  or  to  construct 
theories   concerning  them.       When   the   facts   have   been 
scientifically  ascertained,   the  logic  by  which  veracious  in- 
ferences are  drawn  from  them  differs  in  no  respect  from  the 
logic  of  the  schools.     Undoubtedly  it  is  the  tendency  of  the 
philosophical  dreamer  to  assume  that  some  brilliant  specu- 
lation is  true  because  it  is  brilliant,   without  sufficiently 
ascertaining  the  soundness  of  his  premises — that  is  his  weak- 
ness; and  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  weakness  of  the  man 
of  science  that  he  is  too  prone  to  assume  that  there  can  be 
no  reality  which  does  not  lie  within  the  sphere  of  physical 
experiment.     But,  in  the  rational  discussion  of  any  subject 
whatsoever,  in  which  the  facts  are  conceded  to  be  true,  the 
logic  of  the  man  of  science  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  of 
the  man  of  letters;  and  the  certitude  of  the  one  may  be  as 
indubitable  as  the  certitude  of  the  other.     Thus,  what  we 
call  life  is  beyond  the  region  of  direct  experiment.     It  can- 
not be  weighed  nor  measured.     The  tests  of  the  laboratory 
fail  to  reveal  its  secret.     Yet  the  processes  of  logic,  when 
applied  to  many  facts  of  observation,  constrain  the  scientific 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  \J^>\ 

investigator  to  believe  beyond  all  doubt  in  the  real  existence 
of  life;  and  it  is  in  precisely  the  same  way,  and  through 
precisely  the  same  rational  processes,  that  we  reach  an 
equally  indubitable  certitude  of  the  existence  of  an  original 
Source  of  life. 

Again  it  is  often  taken  for  granted  that  theology  assumes 
much   and   deals  largely  in  conjectural   hypothesis,   while 
Science  assumes  nothing  and  adopts  no  hypothesis  which 
known  facts  do  not  demand.     Precisely  the  reverse  is  true. 
Theology  assumes  nothing  that  Science  does  not  assume; 
and  if  some  of  the  truths  which  it  sets  forth  are  capable  of 
being  represented  as  hypotheses,   their  truth  must  be  es- 
tablished by  evidence  of  precisely  the  same  sort  and  amount 
of  probability  as  is  held  to  be  sufficient  to  establish  scientific 
hypotheses  which  no  one  disputes.     Thus,  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution,  which  is  simply  incapable  of  experimental  veri- 
fication, is  nevertheless  almost  universally  admitted  by  men 
of  science,  because,  while  that  hypothesis  cannot  itself  be 
verified,   it  explains  and  brings  into  harmonious  unity  a 
multitude  of  facts  which  have  been  severally  ascertained.     It 
is  on  precisely  the  same  ground,  and  on  no  other,  that  any 
theological  or  religious  hypothesis  is  entitled  to  acceptance. 
I  do  not  say,  indeed,  that  the  facts  on  which  religious  hy- 
potheses are  grounded  are  invariably  the  same  as  those  on 
which  scientific  hypotheses  are  grounded;  but  this  I  do  say, 
that  the  facts  on  which  religion  depends  must  be  as  surely 
ascertained,  and  that  the  hypotheses  on  which  religious  faith 
relies  must  rest  upon  as  high  a  probability,  and  command 
as  strong  and  irresistible  a  certitude,  as  any  fact  or  hypothe- 


148  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

sis  of  science.  In  all  I  have  to  say  in  the  present  lecture  I 
shall  use  no  premises  which  are  not  confessedly  as  good  for 
physical  science  as  for  theology. 

In  treating  the  subject  now  before  us,  we  may  conveniently 
adopt  the  arrangement  of  the  school  authors,  who  approach 
it  by  seeking  answers  to  these  three  questions:  First,  An  sit 
Deus,  that  is  to  say,  Whether  there  be  a  God;  Second,  Quid 
sit  Deus,  or  What  is  God;  and  Third,  Qualis  sit  DeuSy  or 
What  may  we  know  concerning  God  ? 

I.  To  the  first  question.  Whether  there  be  a  God,  the  cor- 
porate reason  of  mankind  gives  an  affirmative  answer;  and 
the  corporate  conclusions  of  universal  human  reason,  how- 
ever imperfect  in  matters  of  detail,  are  not  lightly  to  be 
disregarded.  We  need  not  depend  upon  them,  however, 
in  this  case,  since  substantially  the  some  logic  consciously 
or  unconsciously  determines  the  belief  of  every  individual. 
For  that  reason  I  discard  what  is  called  the  metaphysical 
argument  for  God's  existence.  I  certainly  do  not  deny  its 
cogency  to  some  minds;  but  I  do  not  care  to  dwell  upon  it, 
because  it  is  cogent  to  only  a  few  minds  of  exceptional  train- 
ing and  capacity.  Neither,  at  this  point,  shall  I  use  the 
teleological  argument,  or  the  argument  from  design,  because, 
while  it  is  exceedingly  strong  to  very  many  minds  when  once 
suggested  to  them,  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  the  argument 
which  has  actually  produced  the  universal  verdict  of  human 
reason  that  there  is  a  God. 

That  argument  is  the  argument  from  cause  and  effect. 
From  the  infancy  of  the  human  race  it  has  been  impossible 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  I49 


for  it  to  believe  that  this  finite  world  and  the  finite  universe 
to  which  it  belongs  can  have  come  into  existence  without 
the  agency  of  some  cause  beyond  them,  and  this  impos- 
sibility has  arisen  from  the  fact  that  all  human  experience, 
and  perhaps  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind  itself;  make 
it  impossible  to  conceive  that  any  finite  thing  can  be,  or  that 
any  event  can  happen,  without  a  cause,  near  or  remote, 
visible  or  invisible.  When  we  speak  of  a  thing  happening 
by  chance,  we  do  not  mean  that  it  had  no  cause,  but  that 
the  cause,  or  combination  of  causes,  which  brought  it  to 
pass,  was  of  such  a  kind  that  the  effect  could  not  be  fore- 
seen. The  simplest  event  that  can  happen  postulates  a 
cause;  and  in  complex  or  complicated  events  the  same 
postulate  is  correspondingly  strengthened.  The  falling  of 
an  apple  postulates  a  cause,  and  the  following  up  of  that 
clue  led  to  the  discovery  of  the  universal  law  of  gravity. 
Now,  if  we  cannot  believe  that  a  single  apple  falls  to  the 
ground  without  a  cause,  it  is  infinitely  more  incredible  that 
the  law  of  gravity  which  controls  the  motions  of  the  spheres, 
and  of  every  atom  of  every  one  of  them,  exists  without  a 
cause;  and  a  universe  existing  by  virtue  of  an  almost  infinite 
complexity  of  laws,  each  of  which  includes  almost  a  whole 
infinitude  of  facts,  is  utterly  incredible.  In  order  to  imagine 
it  we  must  abandon  the  law  of  causation  altogether,  and 
assert,  first,  that  things  can  come  into  existence  and  events 
can  happen  without  a  cause;  and  second,  that  an  orderly 
and  reasonable  but  finite  universe  can  be  produced  and  sus- 
tained without  a  reasonable  cause,  which  is  still  more  in- 
conceivably absurd. 


150  "J^HE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

Against  this  argument  unsophisticated  human  reason 
makes  no  objection.  But  sophistry  raises  this  objection, 
that  what  we  call  a  cause  may  really  be  nothing  but  a  point 
in  an  invariable  sequence  of  facts.  Very  well;  we  do  not 
deny  that;  but  we  ask,  What  causes  the  sequence }  What 
makes  it  invariable  ?  And  does  not  the  invariability  of  a 
sequence  postulate  a  cause  far  more  imperiously  than  the 
connection  of  any  two  points  that  can  occur  in  it  ?  Again, 
it  is  objected  that  the  universe  may  be  a  growth,  and  that, 
therefore,  it  need  not  have  a  cause  beyond  itself.  Once 
again  we  ask,  What  causes  the  growth  .?  By  its  very  nature 
growth  is  not  eternal;  it  must,  therefore,  have  had  a  begin- 
ning; what  made  it  begin  to  grow  ?  Growth  is  a  process 
of  perpetual  change;  what  causes  the  change  }  Growth  must 
proceed  in  some  particular  order;  what  determines  or  causes 
the  order  of  the  growth  ?  A  third  rather  clumsy  objection  is 
made  by  David  Hume,  which  I  should  hardly  care  to  notice 
but  for  its  near  approximation  to  the  agnosticism  of  the 
present  day.  Admitting,  he  said  in  effect,  that  we  cannot 
conceive,  for  instance,  of  a  house  coming  into  existence, 
without  assuming  that  it  must  have  had  a  builder,  yet  we 
are  not  for  that  reason  to  infer  that  the  universe  must  have 
had  a  Maker;  because  we  know  all  about  the  building  of  a 
house,  and  we  know  nothing  of  the  making  of  the  universe. 
This  is  much  the  same  as  to  say  that  although  we  cannot 
imagine  the  simplest  things  which  fall  within  our  knowledge 
to  occur  without  an  adequate  cause,  we  can  imagine  the 
most  complicated  of  all  finite  things  to  have  been  uncaused. 
So  stated,  this  objection  needs  no  answer. 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  151 

Only  one  objection  remains.  Since  it  is  manifestly  irra- 
tional to  suppose  that  finite  things  can  be  produced  or  that 
events  can  happen  without  a  cause,  and  since  the  concep- 
tion of  a  system  of  reasonably  connected  things  and  order- 
ly events  without  a  reasonable  cause  is  utterly  impossible, 
there  is  no  escape  from  the  inference  that  there  must  be  a 
Supreme  and  Reasonable  Cause  of  the  universe  and  its 
phenomena,  unless  by  maintaining  that  the  system  of  the 
universe  is  so  essentially  unreasonable  as  to  require  no 
cause  to  account  for  it.  On  the  physical  side  this  assump- 
tion is  contradicted  by  every  fact  of  science.  There  is  noth- 
ing which  the  researches  of  science  have  more  thoroughly 
ascertained  than  that  the  universe  is  governed  by  universal 
and  inexorable  law;  and  to  say  that  this  is  a  universe  of 
law  is  to  deny  that  it  is  a  universe  of  unreason. 

On  the  moral  side  the  assertion  of  an  unreasonable  uni- 
verse has  certainly  a  semblance  of  support.  We  are  con- 
strained to  admit  that  sin  and  suffering  and  sorrow  are  to  be 
found  here,  and  that  they  are  apparently  bound  up  with  the 
system  of  things  experimentally  known  to  us.  But  it  can- 
not be  inferred  that  a  world  in  which  these  evil  things  exist 
must  needs  be  an  unreasonable  world.  The  facts  alleged 
might  go  to  prove  that  it  is  a  non-moral  or  immoral  world, 
and  hence  it  might  be  inferred  that  it  is  the  work  of  a  non- 
moral  or  immoral  being — that  was  the  doctrine  of  Mani;  but 
still  they  would  not  prove  it  to  be  a  world  that  came,  or  that 
could  ever  have  come,  by  chance.  Even  if  it  seemed  to  have 
been  made  for  perfectly  malignant  purposes,  its  making,  and 
the  reason  of  its  making,  would  still  remain  to  be  accounted 


152  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 


for,  and  would  still  postulate  a  cause.  Besides,  we  must 
not  fail  to  notice  that  the  mere  presence  of  evil  in  the  uni- 
verse does  not  prove  a  malignant  purpose,  unless  it  could  be 
shown  that  evil  is  the  object  of  the  universe.  If  a  man  were 
to  say,  I  have  tooth-ache;  therefore  this  is  either  a  wicked 
world  which  no  good  God  would  create,  or  an  absurd 
world  which  requires  no  God  to  account  for  it,  you  would 
quickly  reply  with  Paley  that  although  it  is  unhappily  true 
that  teeth  ache,  and  that  tooth-ache  is  a  sadly  evil  thing,  yet 
it  is  equally  certain  that  teeth  were  not  made  for  the  purpose 
of  aching,  but  to  subserve  a  necessary  and  beneficent  pur- 
pose in  the  economy  of  life.  A  similar  argument  will  apply 
to  all  the  evils  which  we  find  throughout  the  world.  They 
are  incidents — mysterious  incidents,  indeed — in  the  econo- 
my of  the  universe,  but  they  are  clearly  not  its  aim  or  end. 
We  may  conclude,  then,  without  further  argument,  that 
the  constitution  of  the  human  mind  which  makes  it  impos- 
sible for  us  to  conceive  of  the  existence  of  a  finite  thing,  or 
of  the  occurrence  of  any  event,  without  a  cause,  compels  us 
to  believe  in  the  existence  of  some  Great  First  Cause  of  this 
finite  universe  and  of  all  its  operations.  This  argument,  says 
Kant,  is  ''the  oldest,  the  clearest,  the  most  in  conformity  with 
the  common  reason  of  humanity.  .  .  .  It  is  utterly  hope- 
less to  attempt  to  rob  it  of  the  authority  which  it  has  always 
enjoyed.  The  mind  will  not  suffer  itself  to  be  depressed  by 
the  doubts  suggested  by  subtle  speculations.  It  rises  out  of 
its  uncertainty  the  moment  it  casts  a  look  at  the  wondrous 
forms  of  nature  and  the  majesty  of  the  universe,  and  it  rises 
from  height  to  height,  from  condition  to  condition,  till  it  has 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  153 

elevated  itself  to  the  supreme  and  unconditioned  Author  of 
all."  A  greater  than  Kant  has  sanctioned  the  cogency  of 
the  same  argument  by  declaring  that  ''  the  invisible  things 
of  Him  since  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  be- 
ing perceived  through  the  things  that  are  made,  even  His 
everlasting  power  and  divinity,"'  as  the  necessary  First  Cause 
of  the  universe  and  all  that  it  contains.  If  we  adopt  the 
definition  of  Aristotle  that  God  is  ''that  on  which  the  world 
and  all  nature  depend,"  we  might  now  assume  it  to  be  irra- 
tional to  disbelieve  that  God  is. 

Here,  however,  we  cannot  leave  the  question  of  God's  be- 
ing without  asking  whether  He  has  any  being  apart  from,  or 
independently  of  the  universe  of  which  He  is  the  Cause. 
Pantheism  affirms  that  God  and  nature  are  one,  and  denies 
that  He  has  any  being  either  apart  from  or  independently 
of  nature.  We  go  a  long  way  with  the  affirmation  of  the 
Pantheist;  but  we  join  the  logical  agnostic  in  rejecting  his 
negation.  Christian  theism  does  not  conceive  of  creation 
as  a  causative  act  by  which  the  universe  was  projected  from 
its  Creative  Cause  in  such  a  way  as  to  remain  forever  after 
separate  from  it.  There  is  a  Christian  pantheism  which  the 
researches  of  science  are  ever  tending  to  confirm,  and  which 
recognizes  God  as  immanent  in  the  universe  of  which  He  is 
the  Cause. 

We  are  compelled  to  recognize  that  the  forces  of  nature 
do  reside  in  the  objects  of  nature.  There  is  something  in 
the  stone,  as  well  as  in  the  earth,  which  makes  the  stone  fall 
to  the  earth.  We  call  that  hidden  force  the  attraction  of 
gravity;  but  whatever  we  call  it,  it  is  in  the  stone,  and  wthe 


X54  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 


earth,  and  in  all  matter,  so  evidently  that  we  assume  it  to 
belong  to  the  nature  of  matter.  In  spite  of  gravitation,  how- 
ever, we  observe  that  the  tree  rises  upward  from  the  earth, 
and  that  the  sap  of  the  tree  rises  upward  in  the  stem,  by  vir- 
tue of  a  force  which  manifestly  belongs  to  and  exists  in  every 
seed  of  every  plant  that  grows.  Just  so,  there  is  something 
in  animal  life  which  enables  and  compels  the  snail  to  crawl, 
the  bird  to  fly,  the  fish  to  swim,  the  man  to  move  himself 
from  place  to  place,  in  spite  of  the  law  of  inertia.  If  we  ex- 
amine the  forces  of  nature  themselves,  we  find  them  cu- 
riously self-applied  and  self-changed  in  their  operations. 
Water,  for  instance,  follows  the  universal  law  by  which  all 
matter  is  expanded  by  heat  and  contracted  by  the  withdraw- 
al of  heat,  until  it  falls  to  about  40  degrees  Fahrenheit;  but 
then  it  begins  to  expand  again,  so  that  when  it  reaches  32 
degrees,  the  frozen  water  floats  upon  the  surface.  Clearly 
enough,  the  force  which  first  contracts  the  water,  and  the 
force  which  afterwards  expands  it,  and  the  mysterious  force 
which  stops  the  one  process  and  starts  the  other  must  all 
reside  in  the  element  of  water,  since  they  are  universally 
found  in  it.  Wi-thout  further  illustration,  I  think  we  may 
assume  that  the  forces  of  nature  do  exist  and  abide  in  the 
objects  of  nature. 

But  that  is  not  all.  The  researches  of  science  have  shown 
that  the  forces  of  nature  are  not  only  intimately  related  to 
each  other,  but  that  they  are  actually  convertible  into  each 
other.  Rub  your  hands  together,  and  the  friction,  which 
is  simply  arrested  motion,  converts  that  motion  into  heat. 
Rub  a  piece  of  sealing-wax  upon  your  sleeve,  and  you  con- 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  155 

vert  motion  into  electricity  strong  enough  to  attract  and  hold 
a  piece  of  paper.  Strike  a  flint  and  steel  together,  and  you 
make  the  sparks  fly;  that  is,  you  change  motion  into  light  as 
well  as  heat.  The  converse  is  not  so  easily  illustrated,  but 
it  is  equally  true,  namely  that  light,  heat,  and  electricity  are 
returnable  again  into  the  form  of  motion.  The  inference  is 
clear,  and  it  is  this: — that  motion,  heat,  light  and  electri- 
city are  merely  difl"erent  forms  of  a  single  force,  which  is  at 
once  simpler  and  more  exquisitely  subtle  than  they.  Thus, 
step  by  step,  does  science  lead  up  from  the  infinite  complex- 
ity of  the  forms  and  forces  of  nature  to  the  conception  of 
one  single  simple  force  which  underlies  all  nature  and  which 
causes  all  the  forms  of  force  which  we  perceive.  In  organic 
nature  we  find  much  the  same  thing.  Organic  nature,  from 
the  lowest  to  the  highest,  is  a  world  of  life,  beginning  with 
the  cell,  if,  indeed,  it  is  so  much  as  a  cell,  of  protoplasm, 
and  rising  by  imperceptible  variations  of  cellular  combi- 
nation, to  the  form  of  man  himself.  In  every  individual  of 
every  species,  from  its  embryotic  cell  to  its  full  maturitv, 
there  is  something  which,  from  the  first,  determines  not 
only  what  it  is,  but  how  it  shall  develop,  and  what  it  shall 
become.  Nay,  there  is  often  a  prophecy  of  what  the  individ- 
ual never  can  become,  but  the  species  is  destined  to  become, 
as  in  the  brain  of  the  savage,  whose  actual  life  is  little  above 
that  of  the  brute,  but  whose  brain  is  ready  for  such  work  as 
perhaps  has  never  yet  been  done  by  any  man  upon  this 
planet.  If  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  in  the  largest  sense,  is 
true — if  it  is  true  that  the  co-operation  and  even  the  appar- 
ent confl.ict  of  the  forces  of  nature,  mechanical  and  physi- 


156  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

ological,  are  jointly  modifying  the  existing  forms  of  life  and 
evolving  new  forms  from  them — then  what  marvellous  Some- 
what must  there  not  be  abiding  in  the  life  forms  of  the 
world  !  Truly  the  researches  of  science  seem  to  be  steadily 
leading  us  up  to  the  conviction  that  the  First  Cause  of  the 
universe  continues  to  abide  in  it,  and  is  the  Immanent  Cause 
of  all  the  forces  we  discover  to  be  operating  in  it !  Thus  far, 
and  even  further,  we  may  freely  go  with  pantheism,  holding 
with  unhappy  Bruno  that  amid  the  varying  phenomena  of 
nature  there  is  indeed  a  Power  which  gives  them  coherence 
and  intelligibility  ;  and  that  this  Power,  which  is  present 
through  the  whole  and  every  part  of  nature,  as  the  vital 
principle  is  present  in  the  whole  and  every  part  of  a  living 
body,  is  none  other  than  God. 

It  is  only  when  the  pantheist  denies  that  God  has  any  be- 
ing independently  of  nature  that  we  are  compelled  to  join 
issue  with  him.  We  may  do  so  briefly,  and  on  strictly  scien- 
tific grounds.  For  science  recognizes  that  the  visible  uni- 
verse is  a  finite  universe,  which  had  a  definite  beginning  in 
time  and  is  going  on  to  a  predestined  end  in  time.  But  the 
Supreme  First  Cause  of  all  finite  being  must  Itself  be  eternal, 
uncaused,  unconditioned,  absolute.  The  Cause  on  which 
the  universe  depends  cannot,  therefore,  be  dependent  on  the 
universe.  It  may  abide  and  manifest  Itself  in  the  universe, 
but  It  cannot  be  contained  in  the  universe.  The  Eternal 
may  reveal  Itself  in  time,  but  time  and  the  things  of  time 
cannot  limit  the  Eternal.  To  say  that  absolute  being  is  be- 
yond the  grasp  of  human  conception  does  not  disprove  its 
possibility  or  its  actuality.     It  merely  shows  the  limitation 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  157 

of  our  understanding.  Absolute  being  is  not  a  whit  more 
incomprehensible  than  any  other  sort  of  being,  as  we  shall 
presently  see;  and  it  is  Herbert  Spencer  who  says  that  "the 
omnipresence  of  something  which  passes  comprehension  is 
a  belief  which  the  most  unsparing  criticism  leaves  unques- 
tionable, or  rather  makes  ever  clearer."  Thus  the  steps  of  an 
inexorable  logic  lead  up  to  the  certainty  of  the  existence  of 
a  Great  First  Cause  of  all  things,  which  does  not  only  mani- 
fest Itself  in  nature,  but  which  has,  or  rather  is,  infinite  and 
absolute  Being  in  Itself. 

II.  We  now  come  to  our  second  question.  Quid  sit  Deus? 
that  is  to  say.  What  is  God  as  to  His  essential  nature  ?  The 
answer,  frankly  and  unhesitatingly  given,  is  that  of  the  ag- 
nostic, namely  that  we  do  not  know.  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer 
says  with  great  solemnity  that  ''if  science  and  religion  are  to 
be  reconciled,  the  basis  of  reconciliation  must  be  this  deepest, 
widest,  and  most  certain  of  all  facts — that  the  Power  which 
the  universe  manifests  to  us  is  utterly  inscrutable."  If  that 
is  true,  the  conflict  between  science  and  religion,  supposing 
that  there  is  any  such  conflict,  ought  never  to  have  been 
begun;  for  religion,  or  at  least  the  Christian  religion,  has 
never  ceased  to  proclaim  that  "  deepest,  widest,  and  most 
certain  of  all  facts. "  It  was  as  long  ago  as  in  the  days  of 
Job  that  this  ''first  principle"  was  enunciated  by  Zopharthe 
Naamathite  in  these  biting  words:— "  Canst  thou  by  search- 
ing find  out  God  .?  Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  to  per- 
fection .?  He  is  higher  than  heaven,  what  canst  thou  do  ? 
Deeper  than  hell,  what  canst  thou  know  ? ' 


158  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

And  yet  there  is  a  very  pregnant  fact  to  be  applied  here, 
namely,  that  every  other  fact  and  force  in  the  universe,  con- 
sidered as  to  its  essence,  is  as  hopelessly  inscrutable  as  the 
First  Cause  from  which  they  proceed.  Let  us  hear  what  jMr. 
Spencer  has  to  say  of  that. 

Space  and  time  are  necessary  to  our  modes  of  thought 
concerning  all  things.  We  simply  cannot,  if  we  would,  im- 
agine anything  to  exist  without  existing  somewhere;  and  just 
as  little  can  we  imagine  anything  to  happen  without  happen- 
ing at  some  time.  But  what  are  time  and  space .?  We  do 
not  know.  ' '  Time  and  space, "  says  Herbert  Spencer,  * '  are 
wholly  incomprehensible.  The  immediate  knowledge  which 
we  seem  to  have  of  them,  proves,  when  examined,  to  be  total 
ignorance, " 

Matter,  one  would  think,  must  be  intelligible  to  beings 
who  inhabit  a  material  universe  and  who  are  clothed  with 
a  material  body;  but  is  it  so  .?  "  Matter,"  says  Mr.  Spencer, 
"  in  its  ultimate  nature,  is  as  absolutely  incomprehensible  as 
space  and  time.'' 

At  least  we  ought  to  know  what  motion  is,  since  it  belongs 
to  our  dignity  as  animals  that  we  have  the  power  to  move 
ourselves  from  place  to  place.  But  no;  Mr.  Spencer  again 
declares  that  we  are  ignorant  even  of  that.  *'  Neither  when 
considered  in  connection  with  space,"  he  says,  "  nor  when 
considered  in  connection  with  matter,  nor  when  considered 
in  connection  with  rest,  do  we  find  that  motion  is  truly  cog- 
nizable. All  efforts  to  understand  its  essential  nature  do 
but  bring  us  to  alternative  impossibilities  of  thought." 

Let  us  go  one  step  further  back,  and  inquire  what  force  is. 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY  159 

Surely  a  man  can  tell  what  it  is  that  knocks  him  down. 
Not  at  all.  "  Itis  impossible,"  says  Spencer,  *'  to  form  any 
idea  of  force  in  itself,  and  equally  impossible  to  comprehend 
its  mode  of  existence." 

It  is  needless  to  multiply  these  significant  admissions. 
Two  or  three  sentences  more  will  suffice  to  sum  up  the  whole 
matter,  and  those  sentences  I  shall  take  from  Mr.  Spencer: 
**  The  conviction  that  human  intelligence  is  incapable  of  ab- 
solute knowledge  is  one  thathas  been  slowly  gaining  ground 
as  civilization  has  advanced."  *'  Ultimate  Scientific  Ideas 
are  all  representative  of  realities  that  cannot  be  compre- 
hended. After  no  matter  how  great  a  progress  in  the  colli- 
gation of  facts  and  the  establishment  of  generalizations  ever 
wider  and  wider  ....  the  fundamental  truth  remains 
as  much  beyond  our  reach  as  ever.  To  the  man  of  science 
.  .  .  .  objective  and  subjective  things  are  alike  inscrut- 
able in  their  substance  and  genesis He  real- 
izes with  special  vividness  the  utter  incomprehensibility  of 
the  simplest  fact  considered  in  itself.  He,  more  than  any 
other,  knows  that  in  its  ultimate  essence  nothing  can  be 
known." 

You  see,  then,  that  the  fundamental  proposition  of  agnos- 
ticism, as  enunciated  by  its  greatest  expositor,  does  not  ap- 
ply to  the  being  of  God  only,  but  is  applicable,  in  precisely 
the  same  way,  to  every  fact  and  force  in  heaven  above,  and  in 
the  earth  beneath,  and  in  the  water  under  the  earth.  When 
Mr.  Spencer  declares  with  fit  solemnity  that  the  "Power 
which  the  universe  manifests  is  utterly  inscrutable,"  it  is  to 
be  regretted  that  he  does  not  say  at  once,  as  he  does  say 


160  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

afterwards,  that  everything  else  in  the  universe  is  equally, 
and  in  precisely  the  same  sense,  inscrutable.  If  he  had  said 
so,  he  would  not  have  misled  an  inconsiderate  world,  and 
himself  with  it,  perhaps,  by  drawing  an  inference  from  the 
former  proposition  which  he  certainly  does  not  draw  from 
the  latter. 

For  that  is  precisely  what  he  and  the  whole  school  of 
agnostics  have  unwittingly  done.  Their  argument,  fairly 
stated  is  this:  ''The  Power  which  the  universe  manifests 
(call  it  God  if  you  will)  is  utterly  inscrutable;  it  follows, 
therefore,  that  it  is  unknowable,  and  if  it  is  unknowable, 
you  will  but  waste  time  in  trying  to  learn  that  which  can 
never  be  known."  Now  I  ask  you  to  consider  whether  the 
agnostic  ever  dreams  of  applying  the  same  argument  to  any 
other  fact  than  that  of  the  First  Cause  of  all  facts  and  phe- 
nomena. Let  us  see  how  it  would  sound  in  another  con- 
nection to  which  it  applies  equally  well,  as  thus: — Matter 
and  force  are  utterly  inscrutable;  it  follows  that  they  are  un- 
knowable; but  if  they  are  unknowable,  it  is  a  waste  of  timie 
to  study  that  which  cannot  be  known;  therefore  scientific 
study  is  a  busy  idleness,  which  leads  to  nothing  better  than 
laborious  ignorance  ! 

Put  the  case  in  that  way,  and  the  agnostic  would  be  swift 
to  lay  his  finger  on  the  fallacy.  He  would  tell  you  at  once 
that  you  were  using  the  word  inscrutable  in  a  double  sense, 
and  that  though  a  thing  may  be  inscrutable  as  to  its  essen- 
tial nature,  its  operations  and  relations  may  still  be  perfectly 
and  advantageously  observable.  Thus  he  might  point  you 
to  the  immense  number  of  facts  which  we  have  discovered 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  Ifil 

concer7iing  matter,  though  the  essential  nature  of  matter  in  it- 
self remains,  and  must  ever  remain,  inscrutable  and  unknow- 
able. Or  he  might  point  you  to  our  knowledge  of  motion, 
heat,  light  and  electricity,  the  essential  nature  of  which  is 
confessedly  inscrutable,  but  which  are  so  perfectly  observ- 
able that  we  are  enabled,  by  observing  them,  to  predicate 
not  only  their  reciprocal  convertibility,  hut  the  existence  of 
another  force,  subtler  than  any  of  them,  which  thus  far  has 
eluded  observation. 

Now,  I  ask  you  in  all  reasonableness  why  the  same  dis- 
tinction does  not  apply  to  the  study  of  God  .?  Let  us  admit, 
as  we  do,  that  the  essential  nature  of  God  in  Himself  is  inscrut- 
ble  and  therefore  unknowable;  but  does  it  follow  that  we  can 
know  nothing  about  God  ?  I  trow  not.  If  we  can  discover 
any  thing  that  God  does,  or  has  ever  caused  to  be  done,  that 
alone  is  to  learn  something  concerning  Him;  and  rightly 
reasoned  out,  it  ought  to  furnish  us  the  means  of  learning 
more  concerning  Him.  Though  the  question  Quid  sit  Deus 
must  remain  forever  without  answer,  there  remains  another 
question  which  is  not  unanswerable  in  the  same  sense,  or 
in  the  same  degree.  That  question  is,  Qualis  sit  Deus,  or 
What  may  we  know  concerning  the  nature  of  God  .? 

HI.  I  submit  to  you  that  in  the  observations  which  we 
have  already  made,  we  have  discovered  quite  stupendous 
truths  concerning  the  nature  of  God.  Let  us  glance  back- 
wards and  reconsider. 

Surely  it  is  something  to  have  discovered  that,  unless  all 
human  reason  is  essentially  unreasonable,  God  is,  and  that 


152  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 


He  is  an  absolute  Being,  dependent  upon  no  other  being; 
that  He  is  beyond  all  conditions  of  space  or  time,  or,  in 
other  words,  that  He  is  infinite  and  eternal;  that  He  is  never- 
theless revealed  in  a  finite  universe;  that  He  is  the  Cause  of 
all  the  facts,  forces  and  phenomena  of  nature,  and  conse- 
quently that  He  must  be  of  inconceivable  power.  We  have 
learned  that  the  universe  of  which  He  is  the  sole  Cause  is 
a  universe  of  all-pervading  law,  that  is  to  say,  of  all-per- 
vading reason;  so  that  unless  reason  can  proceed  from  un- 
reason, the  First  Cause  of  this  reasonable  universe  must 
be  a  reasonable  Being.  Further  still  we  may  go.  We  our- 
selves, as  part  of  the  universe,  owe  our  being  and  our  facul- 
ties to  the  First  Cause  from  which  they  have  proceeded. 
Life  as  well  as  reason  must  therefore  have  proceeded  and 
come  forth  from  God,  so  that  unless  life  can  come  from  life- 
lessness — an  hypothesis  contradicted  by  every  trustworthy 
experiment — the  eternal  Source  of  life  must  be  a  living  God. 
I  submit  to  you  that  these  truths,  which  are  as  certain  as  any 
other  truths  that  reason  can  discover,  are  enough  to  set  aside 
the  fallacy  of  the  agnostic.  Let  it  be  granted  without  the 
slightest  hesitation  that  * '  in  its  ultimate  essence,  nothing 
can  be  known,"  and  still  the  fact  remains  that  we  can  learn 
by  observation  a  virtual  infinitude  of  facts  concerning  the 
essentially  inscrutable  elements  of  nature.  In  like  manner, 
we  need  not  hesitate  to  concede  that  "the  Power  which 
the  universe  manifests  to  us  is  utterly  inscrutable "  ;  and 
yet  it  appears  that  we  can  learn  at  least  these  things  concern- 
ing It  ? — that  It  is  a  living  and  reasonable  and  eternal  Be- 
ing of  inconceivable  power;  and  that  this  Being  has  been 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  163 

manifested  at  least  to  that  extent  in  the  visible  creation  of 
which  It  is  the  First  and  only  Original  Cause.  Perhaps,  if 
we  now  return  to  the  beginning  and  prosecute  our  inquiry 
from  another  point  of  acknowledged  scientific  truth,  we  may 
hope  to  learn  more  concerning  the  same  eternally  inscrutable 
Being. 

In  our  second  lecture  I  quoted  the  following  sentences 
form  Mr.  Spencer:  "  The  Manifestations  of  force  occurring 
either  in  ourselves  or  outside  of  ourselves,  do  not  persist; 
but  that  which  does  persist  is  the  Unknown  Cause  of  these 
manifestations.  In  other  words,  asserting  the  persistence 
of  force  is  but  another  mode  of  asserting  an  Unconditioned 
Reality,  without  beginning  or  end."  Now,  according  to 
the  theory  of  evolution,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Spencer,  the  uni- 
verse first  appeared  as  an  undifferentiated  chaos.  If  we  ad- 
mit this  assumption  or  hypothesis,  for  it  is  nothing  else  and 
nothing  more,  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  the  forces 
now  operating  in  the  universe  were  introduced  into  chaos; 
and  it  is  conceded  that  they  must  have  had  their  origin  in 
the  Unconditioned  Reality  which  is  the  acknowledged  Source 
of  all  forces.  How,  then,  was  the  creative  act,  for  so  it  must 
be  called,  by  which  those  forces  were  introduced  into  chaos, 
brought  about .?  Smce  the  Creative  Power  is  acknowledged 
to  have  been  "  unconditioned,"  it  could  not  be  constrained 
by  any  other  power  or  cause  whatsoever.  It  must  therefore 
have  been  freely  self-moved  to  that  act  and  to  all  its  acts. 
But  an  act  of  free  self-movement  or  self-determination  is 
an  act  of  will;  and  indeed  the  only  way  in  which  force  is 
ever  experimentally  known  to  be  originated  in  this  world  is 


164  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

through  an  exercise  of  power  determined  by  an  act  of  will. 
Consequently,  the  Creative  Power  must  be  a  self-moved,  self- 
determined,  or  in  one  word,  a  voluntary  Being.  It  is  one 
of  the  curious  phenomena  of  intellectual  eccentricity  that  in 
this  connection  men  have  argued  that  the  Creative  Will  is 
an  unconscious  Will.  Thus  Hartmann  goes  so  far  as  to  say 
that  although  there  is  an  universal  Will  to  which  all  phe- 
nomena must  be  referred,  and  although  he  maintains  that  it 
is  an  intelligent  Will,  yet  he  insists  that  it  is  also  an  uncon- 
scious Will.  I  frankly  confess  that  I  do  not  consider  such 
a  proposition  worthy  of  discussion;  for  I  submit  to  you  that 
the  exercise  of  an  intelligent  will,  or,  in  other  words,  an  in- 
telligent act  of  choice,  without  consciousness  of  that  act,  is 
not  only  inconceivable  but  impossible. 

Let  us  now  ask  ourselves  whether  the  Unconditioned  Real- 
ity, which  we  find  to  be  intelligently  and  voluntarily  ener- 
getic, is  also  a  moral  Being.  From  the  teaching  of  Mr. 
Spencer  alone  one  might  certainly  hope  so,  since  he  says 
that  the  arrangement  of  the  universe  is  such  that  the  right 
has  an  immense  advantage  in  the  struggle  for  existence.  But 
Matthew  Arnold  goes  much  further.  In  view  of  all  that  sci- 
ence has  discovered  and  that  history  has  disclosed,  he  de- 
clares it  to  be  a  verifiable  fact  that  in  the  government  of  the 
world  there  is  an  Eternal  (Power) — and  there  can  be  only 
One  such  Power — that  makes  for  righteousness;  so  that  the 
man  or  the  people  that  would  be  well  in  any  best  sense  must 
love  righteousness  and  hate  iniquity.  If  this  be  true,  and 
it  is  denied  only  by  a  few  extreme  pessimists,  the  Eternal 
Power  must  be  a  moral  Being;  and  I  know  not  how  an  in- 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  165 

telligent,  voluntary  and  moral  being  shall  be  other  than  a  per- 
sonal being.  How  intelligence,  will  and  morality  can  exist 
without  personality,  I,  for  my  part,  cannot  conceive.  It  is 
true  that  Matthew  Arnold  used  many  a  jibe  of  a  scholastic  sort 
at  the  words  "thinking"  and  "loving"  as  applied  to  the 
Eternal.  He  had  a  fair  provocation  to  do  so  in  the  careless 
use  of  those  words  by  other  men  of  lesser  eminence  than  he; 
but  after  all,  "thinking,"  and  "loving,"  when  so  applied,  are 
meant  only  to  suggest  the  intelligence  and  benevolence  of 
God.  No  one  pretends  that  our  little  brain-swirls  and  nerve- 
swirls  are,  or  can  be,  anything  more  than  suggestions  of  the 
sublime  intelligence  and  love  of  the  Eternal.  That  indubi- 
table truth  Mr.  Arnold  was  never  weary  of  expounding;  but 
he  would  surely  have  done  well  to  expound  the  complemen- 
tary truth  that  the  bare  existence  of  our  own  moral  and  intel- 
lectual natures,  imperfect  as  they  are,  implies  and  postulates 
an  infinite  Reality  of  Wisdom  and  Goodness  in  the  Eternal 
Source  from  which  they  come. 

It  would  surely  be  a  significant  fact  if  it  should  appear 
that  the  doctrine  of  God  which  is  thus  logically  inferred 
from  strictly  scientific  premises,  should  be  found,  as  far  as 
it  goes,  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  If  that 
should  prove  to  be  the  case,  I  submit  to  you  {a)  that  there 
must  be  some  other  than  the  scientific  and  inductive  meth- 
od of  arriving  at  truth,  since  nothing  is  more  certain  than 
this,  that  the  Nicene  doctrine  of  God  was  neither  grounded " 
on  scientific  observations  nor  established  by  induction.  If 
we  should  find  that  the  Nicene  Creed  makes  further  state- 


IQQ  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

ments  concerning  God  to  which  the  facts  of  science  have 
not  originally  led,  but  which  perfectly  accord  with  every 
known  fact  of  science,  I  submit  to  you  {b)  that  there  will 
now  be  a  strong  a  priori  probability  of  the  truth  of  those 
further  statements.  And  if  we  then  find  that  the  theology 
of  the  Nicene  Creed,  taken  merely  as  a  scientific  hypoth- 
esis, answers  that  purpose  for  all  the  facts  of  science  as  per- 
fectly as  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  answers  for  a  portion 
of  them,  and  covers  every  unfilled  gap  in  the  evolutionary 
hypothesis,  I  submit  to  you  {c)  that,  on  strictly  scientific 
grounds,  the  theology  of  the  Nicene  Creed  would  stand 
incomparably  better  established  than  the  partial  theory  of 
evolution.  It  is  to  these  points  that  I  now  ask  your  atten- 
tion; and  the  first  thing  to  be  done  is  simply  to  inquire 
what  the  Nicene  Creed  does  actually  assert  concerning 
God. 

Beyond  all  question,  the  Nicene  Creed  asserts  the  doc- 
trine of  a  perfect  Trinity  existing  from  eternity  in  the  Di- 
vine Being,  that  is  to  say  a  Trinity  of  consciously  distinct 
Persons  abiding  in  one  perfect  and  indivisible  unity.  I 
know  that  this  is  often  supposed  to  be  a  contradiction  in 
terms.  I  hope  to  be  able  to  show  you  that  it  is  neither  a 
contradiction,  nor  a  parodox;  that,  if  we  consider  it  ^/rwn', 
it  is  eminently  probable;  and  that  considered  a  posteriori, 
it  makes  the  theology  of  the  Nicene  Creed  identical  with  the 
theology  of  science  and  induction,  that  is,  to  the  extent  to 
which  science  and  induction  can  establish  a  theology. 

I  suppose  it  will  be  admitted  that  if  all  the  works  of  an 
author  are  found  to  have  some  universal  characteristic,  it  is 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  167 

logical  to  infer  that  the  original  of  that  characteristic  must 
exist  in  that  author;  and  if  it  is  true  that  the  works  of  na- 
ture are  not  works  thrown  off  and  abandoned  by  the  Divine 
Author  of  nature,  but  works  in  which  He  is  pleased  to  abide, 
then  it  is  logical  to  infer  that  any  universal  characteristic 
of  nature  must  be  characteristic  of  the  Author  of  nature. 
Now,  in  nature,  and  in  every  part  of  it,  we  discover  a  trin-  / 
ity  of  substance,  form  and  force.  We  can  conceive  of  noth- 
ing, and  certainly  we  know  of  nothing  m  the  universe,  which 
does  not  exist  substantially.  We  can  conceive  of  no  sub- 
stance, and  we  know  none,  which  has  not  some  form.  We 
can  conceive  of  nothing,  and  we  know  nothing,  which  has 
not  qualities  of  some  sort,  or,  in  other  words,  which  does 
not  exert  some  sort  of  force.  This  is  true  of  the  universe  at 
large;  it  is  equally  true  of  every  atom  in  the  universe;  and 
it  is  as  true  of  organic  nature  as  of  the  nature  which  we  call 
inorganic.  The  atom  which  no  miscroscope  has  ever  yet 
enabled  man  to  see  must  have  substance,  form  and  force  as 
surely  as  the  greatest  sun  that  gems  the  firmament;  and  from 
the  protoplastic  cell  up  to  man  himself  there  is  some  substan- 
tial reality  which  determines  the  form  and  controls  the  vital 
forces  of  every  living  creature. 

The  best  single  thing  that  I  have  been  able  to  think  of  as 
an  illustration  of  this  universal  truth  is  the  common  horse- 
shoe magnet.  Its  substance  is  magnetic  iron;  but  all  mag- 
netic iron  does  not  exist  in  the  form  of  a  horse-shoe.  It 
might  exist,  and  does  exist,  in  any  number  of  forms;  it  can- 
not exist  without  some  form.  Yet,  whatever  the  form  may 
be,  the  form  is  there  because  the  substance  is  there.     After 


168  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

we  have  seen  a  thing  we  may  picture  its  form  in  our  minds 
without  thinking  of  any  substance  in  connection  with  it; 
but  we  cannot  imagine  the  real  objective  existence  of  a  form 
without  some  substance  of  which  it  is  the  form.  It  appears, 
then,  that  substance  and  form  go  together;  that  there  can  be 
no  real  form  apart  from  substance;  and  that  there  can  be  no 
substance  without  a  form.  Yet,  while  form  and  substance 
are  inseparable,  the  form  is  not  the  substance,  and  the  sub- 
stance, whatever  it  may  be,  is  not  the  form.  Moreover,  in 
the  order  of  reality,  as  well  as  in  the  order  of  thought,  the 
form  is  of  the  substance,  or,  in  other  words,  the  form  exists 
because  the  substance  exists,  and  not  contrariwise  the  sub- 
stance because  of  the  form.  In  the  inorganic  world,  we 
often  find  that  the  nature  of  the  substance  determines  its 
form;  in  organic  nature  it  is  invariably  so.  In  a  living  body, 
of  whateve  order,  it  is  not  the  body,  but  the  inscrutable 
living  somewhat,  other  than  the  body,  which  determines  the 
bodily  form  and  governs  all  changes  of  form;  but  neither 
in  organic  nor  in  inorganic  nature  does  the  form  determine 
the  nature  of  the  substance. 

Moreover,  wherever  we  find  substance  and  form,  there 
we  find  force.  In  the  horse-shoe  magnet  the  particular 
force  which  is  most  remarkable  is  magnetic  force.  Here 
again,  we  find  that  the  force  and  the  substance  are  insepara- 
ble; there  is  no  substance  apart  from  force,  nor  can  we 
conceive  of  force  apart  from  substance.  Yet,  as  before, 
the  force  is  not  the  substance,  and  the  substance  is  not  the 
force.  And,  as  before,  the  force  is  of  the  substance,  that  is 
to  say,  the  force  exists  because  the  substance  exists,  and 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  169 

not  contrariwise,  the  substance  because  of  the  force.  There 
is  magnetic  force  because  there  is  a  horse-shoe  magnet,  and 
not  contrariwise  a  horse-shoe  magnet  because  there  is  a 
magnetic  force. 

Now,  in  every  object,  animate  and  inanimate,  known  to 
man,  and  in  any  mode  of  being  conceivable  to  man,  there 
are  these  three  things  :  substance,  form  and  force.  No  one 
of  the  three  is,  or  is  convertible  into,  either  of  the  others. 
Each  is  different  from  each  of  the  others.  Each  is  neces- 
sary to  the  others.  No  one  of  them  is  separable  from  the 
others.  Each  and  all  of  these  three  are  necessary  to  the  real- 
ity and  unity  of  any  being,  animate  or  inanimate,  in  the 
universe.  Would  it  be  absurd,  then,  to  infer  that  these 
three  must,  in  some  supreme  sense,  belong  to  all  being  ? 
I  think  not.  I  think  it  reasonable  to  believe  that  a  law  of 
being  which  demonstrably  and  verifiably  exists  in  all  known 
being  must  have  its  very  root  in  the  inscrutable  Being  which 
is  the  Source  of  all  the  being  that  we  know.  But  if  it  were 
so,  even  in  Supreme  Being,  then  there  would  be  something 
more  than  we  have  seen  in  our  poor  illustration  of  the 
horse-shoe  magnet.  For  Supreme  Being  must  surely  be 
conscious  being,  and  supremely  conscious  being.  If  our 
horse-shoe  magnet  were  fully  conscious  of  the  three  dis- 
tinct realities  which  are  indissolubly  united  in  its  being,  the 
substance  of  it  would  be  conscious  of  itself;  the  form 
would  be  conscious  of  itself;  and  the  indwelling  force 
would  be  conscious  of  itself.  Each  would  be  conscious  of 
its  unity  with  the  others,  and  of  its  difference  from  the 
others.     Thus  there  would  be  the  consciousness  of  an  in- 


170  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

separable  unity,  together  with  that  reahty  and  consciousness 
of  difference,  which  is  distinctive  of  personality.  Unless, 
then,  the  Divine  Source  of  all  being  is  less  than  perfect 
created  being  would  be,  if  it  were  endowed  with  perfect 
consciousness,  we  must  conclude  that .  in  God  there  is  a 
Divine  and  consciously  Substantial  Being,  of  which,  and  in 
unity  with  which,  there  is  a  conscious  Divine  Form,  and 
also  a  conscious  Divine  Power. 

Here  again,  however,  we  may  learn  something  more  from 
our  horse-shoe  magnet.  Bring  the  positive  pole  of  the 
magnet  near  to  a  needle,  but  without  touching  the  needle, 
and  what  happens }  The  needle  springs  to  the  magnet. 
That  is  what  seems  to  happen ;  but  what  really  does  hap- 
pen is  that  the  magnetic  force  of  the  iron  proceeds  from  the 
iron  to  the  needle,  and  draws  it  to  the  magnet.  Yet  the 
force  which  thus  proceeds  from  the  magnet  continues  to 
abide  in  it  in  all  its  fulness.  Use  your  magnet  as  often 
as  you  please — keep  it,  if  you  please,  in  continual  use — 
and  its  power  is  none  the  less.  While  proceeding  from  the 
magnet,  that  power  continues  to  abide  there,  and  abides 
there  undiminished.  It  may  spend  itself  forever,  and  yet 
it  will  remain  forever  unspent.  What  we  can  see  so  plainly 
with  our  eyes  in  the  operation  of  the  magnet  is  as  really 
true  of  every  atom  in  the  universe.  If,  then,  we  may  learn 
anything  whatever  of  the  source  of  all  being  from  the  uni- 
versal facts  of  all  the  being  that  is  known  to  us,  what  can 
we  infer  but  that  The  Divine  Being,  without  change  of  Its 
Divine  and  Eternal  Nature,  may  nevertheless  send  forth  Its 
Power,  so  to  speak,  from  Itself,   while  that  Power  shall 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  171 


abide  unchanged  and  undiminished  within  Itself?  Thus 
It  may  exhibit  Its  Power  immanent  and  operative  in  the 
forces  of  innumerable  worlds  and  of  countless  creatures  in 
every  world,  while  that  same  sublime  Power  remains  whole 
and  undiminished  in  the  Divine  Being,  and  foreVer  inscrut- 
able to  every  creature. 

Is  this,  then,  what  is  meant  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity as  stated  in  the  Nicene  Creed  ?  I  shall  ask  you  to  ex- 
amine the  Creed  itself  to  find  an  answer.  Only,  you  must 
recollect  that  in  the  Creed  the  word  "Son,"  as  I  have  said 
in  the  last  lecture,  is  a  symbolic  word,  not  a  word  of  scien- 
tiilc  definition.  It  is  not  only  the  best  word  that  could  be 
chosen;  it  is  the  word  our  Saviour  chose  to  declare  His  per- 
sonal relation  to  the  Father.  But  even  He,  when  speaking 
of  eternal  facts,  could  use  no  other  than  the  language  of 
time,  which  is  the  language  of  imperfect  symbol.  As  to 
His  eternal  Nature,  the  Creed  asserts  that  He  was  "begot- 
ten of  the  Father  before  all  worlds ; "  not,  however,  by  an 
act  oi  generation,  for  an  act  of  generation  would  be  a  tem- 
poral act;  but  by  virtue  of  an  eternal  relation,  like  that  of 
form  to  substance.  St.  Paul  uses  that  very  language  when  he 
says  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  was  "in  the  form  of  God," 
and  therefore  '*  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God."  St.  John,  adopting  the  Platonic  language  of  his 
time,  said,  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word  (Logos,  L  e., 
Word  or  Reason)  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the 
Word  was  God."  The  difference  between  the  expressions 
of  the  two  Apostles  is  a  difference  of  phrase  only,  since  a 
word  is  the  manifested  form  of  an  idea,  as  reason  is  the  in- 


172  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

tellectual  form  of  wisdom.  Here,  however,  we  must  dis- 
tinguish between  form  in  the  sense  of  mere  shape  and  the 
far  more  significant  sense  in  which  it  is  used  by  St.  Paul. 
The  form  of  a  crystal,  for  example,  is  much  more  than  shape; 
it  is  at  once  a  determinate  and  necessary  consequence  of 
the  nature  of  the  substance  of  which  it  is  composed  and  the 
medium  through  which  that  substance  is  related  to  all  other 
substances.  In  the  world  of  life  we  may  perceive  the  same 
truth  even  more  manifestly;  for  in  every  living  creature 
there  is  some  inscrutable  vital  entity  which  determines  its 
bodily  form,  and  yet  the  bodily  form  of  the  living  entity  is 
not  merely  a  visible  shape,  but  also,  and  much  more,  an 
organism  by  which  the  creature  is  mediately  related  to  the 
rest  of  nature.  So  the  personal  and  divine  Form  of  God  is 
not  to  be  conceived  as  merely  subsisting  in  an  eternal  rela- 
tion to  the  divine  Essence  of  which  it  is  begotten,  but  also 
as  the  only  and  necessary  mediator  between  God  and  all  that 
is  not  God.  The  Psalmist  may  have  spoken  more  and  bet- 
ter than  he  knew  when  he  said,  ''  By  the  Word  of  the  Lord 
were  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the 
Breath  of  His  mouth."  When  the  creative  act  was  done 
which  brought  a  cosmos  out  of  chaos,  the  Mediating  Agent 
of  the  Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible  was  the 
Eternal  Word;  the  Creative  Power  was  the  Eternal  Spirit. 
From  then  till  now  the  Tdediating  Agent  is  the  same,  the 
Word  of  God,  the  Reason  that  appears  in  nature  and  its 
marvellously  reasonable  processes;  the  Eternal  Spirit,  which 
proceedeth  from  the  Father,  yet  abideth  ever  in  the  Father, 
is  the  Power  exhibited  in  all  phenomena  of  force  and  life. 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  173 

That  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicene  Creed  concerning  God. 
That  is  the  meaning  of  the  sublime  declaration:  "We  be- 
lieve in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible ;  and  in  the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father  before 
all  worlds,  by  Whom  all  things  are  made ;  and  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  Lord,  the  Life-Giver,  Who  proceedeth  from  the 
Father,  Who  with  the  Father  and  the  Son  together  is  wor- 
shipped and  glorified.'' 

More  than  once  I  may  have  seemed  to  you  to  undervalue 
the  teleological  argument,  that  is,  the  argument  from  de- 
sign, which  is  sometimes  called  "the  carpenter  theory."  I 
do  not  at  all  undervalue  it ;  to  do  so  would  be  to  under- 
value the  argument  of  the  Psalmist  when  he  says,  "The 
heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  show- 
eth  forth  His  handiwork."  But  the  teleological  argument 
proves  nothing  more  than  a  Creator  of  finite  things,  and 
therefore  it  cannot  prove  an  infinite  Creator.  It  falls  far 
short  of  what  we  need.  Moreover,  it  has  generally  been 
used  after  the  manner  of  the  deists,  that  is,  to  prove  the 
being  of  a  God  beyond  nature,  who,  having  once  for  all 
made  the  universe,  has  cast  it  ofi"  to  go  its  way  under  the 
necessity  of  arbitrary  laws.  So  used,  the  teleological  argu- 
ment may  be  worse  than  useless ;  it  may  be  almost  mis- 
chievous. At  best,  the  conception  of  God  as  a  Contriver  is 
a  make-shift.  As  Principal  Caird  has  admirably  said,  "  Our 
admiration  of  the  power  and  skill  of  a  human  designer  is 
enhanced  by  the  supposed  intractableness  of  the  materials 


174  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 


with  which  he  works  ;  but  when  the  Divine  Designer  is  con- 
ceived of  as  Himself  the  creator  of  these  materials,  He 
must,  according  to  this  anthropomorphic  notion,  be  Him- 
self responsible  for  that  original  intractableness  which  He  is 
supposed  afterwards  to  manifest  His  skill  in  overcoming. 
Where  difficulties  are  of  one's  own  creating,  no  credit  for 
wisdom  can  be  due  to  the  act  which   evades  or  vanquishes 

them The  form  of  thought,  therefore,  under 

which  we  are  forced  to  conceive  of  this  designer  is,  at  best, 
that  of  an  agent  who  comes  in  with  a  second  idea,  or  a 
subsequently  struck-out  device,  not  present  to  him  in  his 
original  or  creative  thought ;  of  one  who  improves  upon  or 
corrects  his  first  conception.  Finally,  though  by  the  sup- 
plementary notion  of  Providence,  we  get  rid  of  the  limita- 
tion in  the  case  of  human  contrivers,  viz.,  that  their  thought 
and  power  cease  to  be  in  or  with  their  work  as  soon  as  they 
have  finished  its  construction  and  surrendered  it  to  the 
keeping  of  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature,  yet  this  device  does 
not  wholly  purge  the  primary  idea  of  its  finitude.  The 
Providence  that  comes  in  to  sustain  the  mechanism  which 
the  Divine  Contriver  has  completed  is  something  outside 
of  that  mechanism  itself,  and  therefore  limited  by  it.  The 
work  has  a  definite  nature  of  its  own,  apart  from  the  power 
that  merely  props  it  up  or  keeps  it  going.  As  we  cannot 
think  of  the  Divine  Contriver  as  going  on  perpetually  recre- 
ating the  same  work,  but  must  think  of  the  completed  work 
as  having  a  particular  character  and  form  of  its  own  which 
He  has  merely  to  sustain,  it  is  obvious  that  there  must  be 
something  in  the  work  which  lies  outside  of  or  apart  from 
Him." 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  I75 


But  to  continue  in  the  language  of  the  same  admirable 

writer,    ''There  is,    indeed,    another  kind   of  teleology 

what  may  be  designated  as  inner  or  essential  teleology — to 
which  the  foregoing  objections  are  not  applicable,  and 
of  which  we  have  an  example  in  the  animal  organism. 
The  thought  or  design  which  is  at  work  in  the  growth  and 
development  of  organized  structures  is  not  a  mere  mechan- 
ical power  or  cunning  acting  from  without^shaping,  ad- 
justing, putting  together  materials  prepared  to  its  hand, 
constructing  them  according  to  an  ingenious  plan,  after 
the  manner  of  a  maker  of  machines.  Here,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  idea  or  formative  power  goes  with  the  matter 
and  constitutes  the  very  indwelling  essence  of  the  thing. 
Instead  of  coming  in  as  an  afterthought,  to  give  to  exist- 
ing materials  a  new  use  and  purpose  not  included  or  pre- 
supposed in  their  own  original  nature,  the  idea  or  design 
is  present  from  the  very  beginning,  inspiring  the  first  mi- 
nute atom  or  cell  with  the  power  of  the  perfect  whole  that 
it  is  to  be.  Nor,  for  the  building  up  and  completing  of 
the  structure,  is  there  any  call  for  the  interposition  of  ex- 
ternal agency.  From  first  to  last  it  is  self-formative,  self- 
developmg;  the  life  within  resists  all  merely  outward  in- 
terference, and  subordinates  all  outward  conditions  to  its 
own  development.  In  this  case,  therefore,  we  do  not  need 
to  go  beyond  or  outside  of  the  thing  itself  in  seeking  for 
the  explanation  of  it  The  thought  or  reason  that  explains 
it  is  within  itself,  nay,  is  its  very  self;  so  that  to  perceive  or 
know  the  thing  at  all,  is  to  perceive  or  know  the  reason 
and  ground  of  its  existence.     Nor,  lastly,  can  we  here  sep- 


170  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 

arate  the  notions  of  existence  and  preservation — the  nature 
of  the  thing,  and  the  providence  that  keeps  it  up — so  as  to 
make  the  one  a  limit  to  the  other.  The  idea,  or  active 
formative  thought,  in  which  an  organism  lives,  needs  no 
second  or  foreign  idea  to  preserve  or  sustain  it.  It  is,  in  a 
certain  sense,  its  own  providence.  The  continuous  exist- 
ence of  the  organism  lies  in  the  perpetual  activity  of  the 
vital  principle,  which  is,  so  to  speak,  ever  re-creating  it, 
ever  engaged  in  that  process  of  continuous  self-differentia- 
tion and  integration,  the  cessation  of  which  would  be  the 
extinction  of  its  very  existence. 

"Now,  if  it  were  possible  to  extend  this  teleological 
idea  to  the  whole  finite  world,  we  should  be  able  to  see  in 
the  world  the  manifestation  of  a  kind  of  design  to  which 
the  objections  urged  against  the  ordinary  design  argument 
would  no  longer  be  applicable;  for  what  we  should  then 
have  before  us  would  be  one  vast,  self-consistent  system, 
one  organic  whole,  one  self-evolving,  self-realizing  idea, 
infusing  the  lucidity  of  reason  into  all  things,  potentially 
present  in  the  lowest  order  of  existences,  slowly  advancing 
itself,  without  cleft  or  arbitrary  leap,  from  lower  to  higher  ; 
so  that  the  lower,  though  not  the  cause,  would  be  the  pre- 
supposition and  the  unconscious  prophecy  of  the  higher, 
the  higher  the  explanation  of  the  lower,  and  the  highest  of 
all  that  in  which  the  meaning,  end,  or  aim  of  the  whole 
would  be  clearly  seen.  Such  a  teleological  view  of  the 
world  would  not  involve  a  representation  of  Divine  Intelli- 
gence as  an  arbitrary  agency  brought  in  from  without  to 
fill  up  gaps  or  improve  on   its  original  products,  nor  as  a 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  177 


power  acting  in  different  isolated  capacities— now  as  cre- 
ator, now  as  contriver,  now  as  sustainer — but  as  the  in- 
ward life  and  reason  of  all  things,  anticipating  and  fore- 
shadowing the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  moving  on- 
wards in  its  own  continuous,  self-conditioned  process  to  an 
end  which  itself  determines." 

That,  certainly  as  I  conceive  it,  is  the  teleology  of  the 
Nicene  Creed,  the  teleology  of  St.  Paul,  when  he  says  that 
**by  Him  Who  is  the  Image  of  the  invisible  God,  all  things 
subsist,"  so  that  ''we  Hve  and  move  and  have  our  being" 
in  God,  immanent  in  the  universe  He  has  brought  into  ex- 
istence, and  in  which  the  glory  of  His  presence  and  abid- 
ing Power  is  manifestly  revealed. 

In  nature,  so  conceived,  there  are  no  gaps  to  be  filled  up 
such  as  are  left  wide  open  by  the  theory  of  evolution.  Ev- 
olution assumes  an  original  undifferentiated  chaos — an  hy- 
pothesis which  is  simply  unthinkable.  Evolution  can  give 
no  account  of  the  origin  of  the  undifferentiated  chaos,  nor 
of  the  entrance  of  force  into  it.  After  admitting  the  intro- 
duction of  mechanical  force  to  have  been  necessary  to  the 
change  of  chaos  into  cosmos,  evolution  can  give  no  ac- 
count of  the  incoming  of  life-force.  Admitting  life-force, 
it  has  no  account  to  render  of  consciousness,  still  less  of 
reason.  Thus,  if  we  admit  the  hypothesis  of  evolution— 
and  I  know  of  no  Christian  ground  on  which  we  need  hesi- 
tate to  do  so — we  have  covered  only  one  domain  of  the 
universe  with  a  reasonable  and  consistent  theory.  The  the- 
ology of  the  Nicene  Creed  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
theory  of  evolution,  accounts  for  all  its  facts,  and  fills  every 


173  THE  GOD  OF  SCIENCE 


gap  between  them.  Moreover,  the  theology  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  makes  no  demand  upon  the  reason  which  an  evolu- 
tionist like  Mr.  Spencer  does  not  admit  to  be  logically  justi- 
fied. Mr.  Spencer's  main  contention  is  that  the  existence 
of  the  universe  shows  the  being  of  an  eternal  Reality  to  be 
"the  most  certain  of  all  things/'  because,  without  such  a 
Reality,  he  cannot  intellectually  bridge  the  gap  betwen  orig- 
ginal  chaos  and  the  existing  cosmos.  The  Nicene  theology 
bridges  every  other  apparent  gap  in  the  continuity  of  na- 
ture in  precisely  the  same  way,  by  recognizing  the  opera- 
tion of  precisely  the  same  Supreme  Power,  and  by  its  doc- 
trine of  that  Power  it  clears  every  difficulty  of  belief  so  sim- 
ply that  its  faith  becomes  a  lofty  exercise  of  reason.  The 
God  of  Deism  is  inadequate  to  the  intellectual  requirements 
of  this  age.  The  impersonal  God  of  Pantheism  existing 
only  in  finite  nature  utterly  fails  to  explain  the  origin  of 
Nature.  The  Triune  God  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  in  Whom 
we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being,  is  the  only  God  in 
Whom  modern  science  leaves  it  possible  to  believe  ;  and, 
to  completeness  even  of  scientific  thought,  that  Triune  God 
is  indispensable. 

In  conclusion,  I  beg  you  to  remember  that  the  state- 
ments of  the  Nicene  Creed  were  not  founded  on  scientific 
observations  and  inductions,  but  on  the  authority  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Now,  after  the  lapse  of  fifteen  hundred  years,  those 
statements,  so  far  as  they  have  been  tested  by  the  scientific 
and  inductive  method,  are  found  not  only  to  bear  the  test, 
but  to  supply  the  links  of  continuity  which  science  owns 
her  inability  to  forge  in  framing  a  rational  theory  of  the 


THE  TRIUNE  GOD  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  I79 

cosmos.  I  ask  you,  then,  whether  we  are  not  entitled  to 
claim  that  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  only  the 
Nicene  theology,  is  confirmed  and  established  by  science, 
in  those  particulars  in  which  the  witness  of  science  is  avail- 
able ?  I  ask  you  whether  we  are  not  entitled  to  claim  that 
in  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  we  have  a  source  of  truth 
beyond  that  which  is  appropriate  to  scientific  studies  ?  I 
ask  you  whether  there  is  not  an  overwhelming  probability 
that  any  further  statements  made  by  Him,  or  by  His  au- 
thority, are  as  true  as  those  which,  after  nineteen  hundred 
and  fifty  years,  are  found  to  stand  the  tests  of  a  science 
which  had  not  been  born  when  Jesus  Christ  lived  among 
men  ?  Since  we  find  not  only  that  science  itself  postulates 
a  God,  but  that  the  God  Whom  science  postulates  is  the 
God  declared  by  Jesus  Christ,  I  ask  you  whether  the  ques- 
tion. What  is  Christ  ?  is  not  far  more  than  likely  to  find  its 
true  answer  in  the  account  which  Christ  gave  of  Himself? 


LECTURE  VI. 
CONCL  US  ION 


LECTURE  VL 

CONCLUSION, 

DESTRUCTIVE  CRITICISM  LEAVES  THE  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES 
UNMOVED.  THE  HIGHEST  CRITICISM.  THE  SELF-EVIDENCE 
OF  CHRIST.  INCARNATION.  MIRACLE.  THE  SUPREME 
VERIFICATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father. — ^JoHN  xiv.  9. 
If  there  is  one  fact  recorded  in  Scripture  which  is  entitled  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  word  to  the  name  of  a  miracle,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is 
that  fact.  Here,  at  least,  is  an  instance  in  which  the  entire  Christian 
faith  must  stand  or  fall  with  oar  belief  in  the  supernatural. — DeAN 
Mansel. 

The  fact  that  Christ  appeared  as  a  worker  of  miracles  is  the  best  at- 
tested fact  in  his  whole  biography,  both  by  the  absolute  unanimity  of  all 
the  witnesses  and  by  countless  other  confirmations  of  circumstances  not 
likely  to  have  been  invented,  striking  sayings  connected  with  them,  etc. 
— EccE  Homo. 

Miracles  are,  in  themselves,  extremely  improbable  things,  and  cannot 
be  admitted  unless  supported  by  a  great  concurrence  of  evidence.  For 
some  of  the  evangelical  miracles  there  is  a  concurrence  of  evidence, 
which,  when  fairly  considered,  is  very  great  indeed;  for  example,  for 
the  resurrection,  for  the  appearance  of  Christ  to  St.  Paul,  for  the  general 
fact  that  Christ  was  a  miraculous  Healer  of  disease.  The  evidence  by 
which  these  facts  are  supported  cannot  be  tolerably  accounted  for  by 
any  hypothesis  except  that  of  their  being  true.  And  if  they  are  once 
admitted,  the  antecedent  improbability  of  many  miracles  less  strongly 
attested  is  much  diminished. — Ibid. 

Whoever  would  deny  the  presence  of  the  divine  power  in  human 
history  must  first  reduce  the  Character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  the  level 
of  the  possibilities  of  human  nature.  He  is  Himself  the  greatest  of  His 
miracles. — Newman  Smyth. 

183 


184  CONCLUSION. 


It  takes  a  Newton  to  forge  a  Newton.  What  ma"  could  have  fabri- 
cated Jesus  ?     None  but  Jesus. — Theodore  Parker. 

The  facts  of  religious  feeling  are  to  me  as  certain  as  the  facts  of 
physics No  atheistic  reasoning  can,  1  hold,  dislodge  re- 
ligion from  the  heart  of  man As  an  experience  of  con- 
sciousness, it  is  perfectly  beyond  the  assaults  of  logic. — Tyndall. 

Ii  should  not  be  forgotten  that  opinions  have  a  moral  side  to  them. — 
Sir  James  Stephen. 

Feeling  and  conscience  are  more  than  helps  to  logic  in  finding  truth. 
They  are  themselves  organs  for  the  discovery  of  truth.— Caird. 

We  may  question  the  decisions  of  the  intellect,  but  it  is  at  our  peril 
that  we  tamper  with  the  verdict  of  the  heart.— Robertson. 

The  teachmg  of  Jesus  carried  morality  to  the  sublimest  point  attained, 

or  even  attainable,  by  humanity He  presented   the  rare 

spectacle  of  a  life,  so  far  as  we  can  estimate  it,  uniformly  noble  and 
consistent  with  His  own  lofty  principles,  so  that  the  imitation  of  Christ 
has  become  almost  the  final  word  in  the  preaching  of  Ilis  religion,  and 
must  continue  to  be  one  of  the  most  powerful  elements  of  its  permanence. 
— Supernatural  Religion. 

Thou  didst  cry  unto  me  from  afar,  and  I  heard  Thee  even  as  the  heart 
heareth;  and  there  was  no  more  place  left  for  doubt.— St.  Augustine. 
Let  all  the  doctors  hold  their  peace;  speak  Thou  alone  to  me. — St. 
Thomas  a  Kempis. 

We  may  admit  that  there  are  notions,  ideas,  beliefs,  which  cannot  be 
deduced  syllogistically,  which  the  logic  of  the  understanding  cannot  justi- 
fy, and  yet  maintain  that  by  a  profounder  logic,  which  enters  into  the 
genesis,  and  traces  the  secret  rhythm  and  evolution  of  thought,  they  can 
be  shown  to  rise  out  of,  and  be  affiliated  to,  other  ideas,  and  to  form 
constituent  elements  in  that  living  process  of  which  all  truth  consists. — 
Cairo. 

In  the  previous  lecture  I  endeavored  to  show  that  the  evi- 
dences of  Christianity  would  be  made  only  clearer,  and  that 
its  sublimest  truths  would  receive  nothing  but  confirmation, 
if  we  should  frankly  admit  the  ascertained  facts  of  physical 
science  and  apply  to  them  the  same  methods  of  logical  scru- 


CONCLUSION.  185 


tiny  which  are  used  by  reasoners  in  all  departments  of  scien- 
tific research.  In  the  present  lecture  I  must  glance  far  more 
rapidly  than  I  could  wish  at  several  points  which  seem  to  me 
to  be  of  great  importance;  but  first  of  all  I  desire  briefly  to 
show  you  that,  if  we  should  deal  with  the  most  destructive 
criticism  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  same  open  and  can- 
did way  in  which  we  have  tried  to  deal  with  scientific  dif- 
ficulties, Christianity  would  receive  no  damage. 

I  have  already  shown,  conclusively,  as  I  think,  that  the 
Christian  religion  is  committed  to  no  theory  whatever  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  to  no  critical  theory 
of  their  date,  their  authorship,  or  their  composition.      If  that 
is  true,  then  it  follows  that  no  facts  which  criticism  has  es- 
tablished, or  ever  can  establish,  can  be  inconsistent  with  the 
truth  of  Christianity.     Yet  the  value  of  documentary  evi- 
dence of  the  origin  of  Christianity,  contemporary  with  its 
first  propagation  as  a  revealed  religion,   is  by   no   means 
slight;  and  it  is  satisfactory  to  know  that  the  most  destruc- 
tive criticism  which  has  ever  been  applied  to  the  contents  of 
the  New  Testament  leaves  four  important  documents  unim- 
peached.     No  one  denies  that  St.  Paul's  epistles  to  the  Ro- 
mans, his  two  epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and  his  epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  are  authentic  letters  of  their  reputed  author; 
and  the  contents  of  those  letters  tell  us  who  their  author  was, 
when  and  to  whom  he  wrote,  the  doctrine  that  he  taught  and 
the  grounds  on  which  he  rested  his  own  belief  in  that  doc- 
trine and  appealed  to  others  to  believe  it.      Let  us  examine 
these  points  very  briefly. 

The  writer  of  these  letters  was  undoubtedly  a  Jew  of  great 


186  CONCLUSION. 


learning,  educated  in  the  strictest  Judaism,  and  zealouc  in 
its  defence.    He  was  a  contemporary  of  our  Lord,  and  prob- 
ably of  nearly  the  same  age  as  He.     It  does  not  appear 
that  he  had  ever  personally  met  or  heard  our  Saviour;  but 
it  is  perfectly  certain  that  he  had  known  the  fact  of  our  Lord's 
death  at,  or  soon  after,  the  time  of  its  occurrence,  and  it  is 
not  less  certain  that,  about  the  same  time,  he  must  have 
heard  the  testimony  of  some  of  the  disciples  to  the  fact  of 
His  resurrection.      He  did  not  believe  their  testimony,  but 
rejected  it  with  such  zeal  as  to  be  chosen  by  the  Jevvish  au- 
thorities to  proceed  to  Damascus  to  crush  the  Christian  sect 
which  had  appeared  even  there  at  a  very  early  date.      How 
much  of  the  Gospel  story  Saul  may  have  heard  before  he  set 
out  to  Damascus  we  do  not  know.     It  is  probable  that  he  had 
heard  much  more  of  it  than  is  commonly  supposed;  because 
the  story  itself  was  public  and  notorious;  because  it  is  alto- 
gether improbable  that  a  learned  man  like  Saul  would  under- 
take to  suppress  a  sect  of  his  countrymen  without  informing 
himself  of  its  tenets;  and  also  because  such  knowledge  would 
account  in  a  large  measure  for  the  apparent  suddenness  of 
his  conversion.     As  he  went  on  his  persecuting  mission,  re- 
volving, doubtless,  all  that  he  had  heard,  it  is  not  impossi- 
ble nor  improbable  that  the  mingled  pathos  and  majesty  of 
the  life  and  death  of  Christ  may  have  moved  his  heart  and 
troubled  his  mind;  it  is  neither  impossible  nor  improba- 
ble that  he  may  have  thought  tb-at  such  a  life  and  such  a 
death  were  not  unworthy  of  a  Son  of  God;  it  is  more  than 
likely  that  he  may  have  inwardly  revolted  from  the  work  of 
persecuting  the  followers  of  such  a  Man;  there  is  reason  to 


CONCLUSION.  187 


believe  that  he  found  it  "hard  to  kick  against  the  pricks "'  of 
an  uneasy  conscience;  yet  he  continued  steadfast  in  his  pur- 
pose until,  as  he  continued  to  believe  to  his  life's  end,  the 
crucified,  dead  and  buried  Jesus  Himself  appeared  to  him. 
Accepting  this  supreme  proof  that  Jesus  still  lived,  and  that 
He  must  therefore  be  all  that  He  professed  to  be,  Saul  be- 
came a  member  of  the  sect  which  he  had  persecuted,  and 
was  baptized  in  the  Name  which  he  thenceforth  honored 
above  every  other  name.  Presently  he  received  what  he  held 
to  be  a  call  to  preach  the  Gospel  and  went  down  into  Ara- 
bia to  prepare  himself  for  that  great  work.  Three  years  he 
abode  there  and  at  Damascus,  studying  that  profound  sys- 
tem of  thought  of  which  we  have  the  outlines  in  his  extant 
epistles.  Then  he  visited  Jerusalem  and  spent  fifteen  days 
with  the  Aposde  Peter,  only  to  find  that  their  Gospel  was 
the  same.  Fourteen  years  passed  before  he  went  again  to 
Jerusalem  to  attend  the  council  which  was  held  to  settle  the 
question  of  the  obligation  of  the  law  of  Moses  on  Gentile 
converts;  and  then  again,  fearing  that  in  any  respect  he 
might  have  been  preaching  vain  doctrine,  he  privately  com- 
municated to  the  heads  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  the  Gos- 
pel he  had  preached  among  the  Gentiles.  Again  he  found 
that  his  Gospel  and  theirs  were  one  and  the  same.  He  who 
had  seen  Christ  but  once,  and  then  in  so  unusual  a  way  that 
he  might  conceivably  have  been  deceived,  had  the  satisfac- 
tion to  know  that  many  other  men  who  had  gone  in  and 
out  with  Jesus  all  the  time  of  His  earthly  life,  who  had  heard 
His  words  and  been  witnesses  of  His  works,  who  had  seen 
and  conversed  with  Him  many  times  after  His  death  and 


188  CONCLUSION. 


burial,  were  ready  to  go  to  prison,  to  torture  and  to  a  con- 
vict's death  maintaining  the  reality  of  the  great  fact  of  His 
resurrection,  of  which  Paul,  too,  was  a  witness.  Paul's  Gos- 
pel and  theirs,  wherever  it  had  been  preached,  was  substan- 
tially the  same  Gospel.  Whether  at  Jerusalem,  the  Holy  City 
of  Israel,  or  at  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  civilized  world,  or 
at  Corinth,  the  mercantile  emporium  of  the  East  and  the 
West,  or  in  the  obscure  districts  of  the  rural  province  of 
Galatia,  one  and  the  same  truth  of  Christ  had  been  taught 
and  believed  on  the  faith  of  one  and  the  same  evidence  of 
its  truth. 

So  much  may  be  learned  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
alone;  and  from  that  epistle  and  the  three  others  now  under 
consideration  we  may  learn  the  character  of  the  persons  to 
whom  these  letters  were  addressed.  They  were  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  and  therefore  included  both  classes  of  those  to 
whom  the  Gospel  was  to  be  commended,  and  by  whom  it 
was  to  be  investigated. 

In  the  Jews  it  had  to  encounter  a  vehemence  of  opposi- 
tion of  which  Paul  could  not  complain,  since  he  himself  had 
been  a  persecutor.  It  is  true  that  he  commended  the  Gos- 
pel to  them  as  the  rich  fulfilment  of  all  that  Moses  and  the 
prophets  had  taught  and  foretold;  but  at  the  same  time  he 
told  them  that  the  Mosaic  law  which  they  regarded  with  super- 
stitious reverence  had  been  superseded;  and  he  called  upon 
them  to  abandon  at  once  and  forever  that  national  caste  sys- 
tem which  has  been  the  pride  and  strength  of  Israel  through- 
out all  ages.  His  own  example  showed  that  to  embrace  the 
Gospel  would  be  to  cut  themselves  off  from  the  authorities  of 


CONCLUSION.  189 


their  religion,  and  to  become  outcasts  from  their  kindred.  It 
was  not  in  human  nature  to  make  such  sacrifices  for  slight 
reasons,  nor  without  indubitable  proofs  of  the  rightfulness 
of  the  claims  of  a  Messiah  whom  no  one  denied  to  have  been 
crucified  as  a  malefactor,  but  of  whom  they  had  no  personal 
knowledge.  Now,  it  was  no  great  task  for  a  Jew  at  that  time 
to  ascertain  the  truth.  All  of  these  four  epistles  date  within 
twenty-five  years  of  the  death  of  Christ;  and  the  chief  wit- 
nesses of  the  resurrection  had  been  accessible  for  a  quarter  of 
a  century,  and  were  still  accessible  to  any  of  the  many  Jews 
who  were  constantly  resorting  to  Jerusalem.  It  can  hardly 
be  doubted,  therefore,  that  many  Jewish  converts  must  have 
consulted  those  witnesses  before  they  consented  to  accept  a 
Gospel  which  entailed  such  sacrifices. 

The  Gentiles  to  whom  the  Gospel  was  offered  could  not 
be  expected  to  be  less  exacting  in  their  demand  for  suffi- 
cient evidence  of  its  truth.  It  required  them  to  surrender  the 
liberty  of  conduct  which  all  forms  of  heathenism  allowed 
them  to  indulge  without  scruple;  to  ally  themselves  with  a 
people  which  was  everywhere  detested  and  despised;  to  be- 
come the  devotees  and  worshippers  of  a  crucified  malefactor. 
Doubtless,  then,  as  always,  the  sweet  story  of  the  Gospel  so 
moved  men's  hearts  as  to  win  their  love  and  faith  without 
external  evidence;  but  it  would  be  too  much  to  believe  that 
keen-witted  Greeks  and  sober  Romans  would  renounce  the 
right  to  see  and  question  the  witnesses  of  so  stupendous  a 
fact  as  that  of  an  alleged  resurrection  from  the  dead. 

Now,  as  these  letters  more  than  sufficiently  prove,  that 
allegation  was  the  sole  ground  on  which  St.  Paul  claimed 


190  CONCLUSION, 


the  faith  of  any  man.  If  it  was  not  true  that  Christ  had 
risen  from  the  dead,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the 
whole  Gospel  was  a  delusion,  and  worse  than  a  delusion, 
since,  in  that  case,  Paul  himself  and  all  the  other  apostles 
who  had  "testified  of  God  that  He  had  raised  up  Christ," 
would  be  proved  to  be  "  false  witnesses  of  God."  On  the 
single  fact  of  the  resurrection  St.  Paul  openly  and  un- 
equivocally staked,  not  only  honor  and  all  else  that  makes 
life  dear,  but  life  itself,  and,  what  was  more  than  any  man's 
life,  the  whole  truth  of  the  Christian  religion. 

On  the  faith  of  what  testimony  did  he  stake  his  life  and 
honor  here  and  his  eternal  salvation  hereafter }  What  evi- 
dence did  he  oifer  to  others  to  unite  with  him  in  so  com- 
plete an  act  of  faith  and  trust }  He  tells  the  Corinthian 
Christians  plainly,  what  his  Gospel  had  been  and  the  grounds 
on  which  it  rested.  He  says:  ''  I  delivered  unto  you  first 
of  all  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for 
our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures;  and  that  He  was  buried; 
and  that  He  rose  again  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures; and  that  He  was  seen  of  Cephas,  then  of  the  twelve; 
after  that  He  was  seen  of  above  five  hundred  brethren  at 
once,  of  whom  the  most  part  remain  unto  this  present,  but 
some  are  fallen  asleep.  After  that  He  was  seen  of  James; 
then  of  the  Apostles.  And  last  of  all  He  was  seen  of  me 
also,  as  of  one  born  out  of  due  time."  There  are  the  wit- 
nesses :  nearly  five  hundred  living  persons,  not  including 
Paul  himself,  many  of  whom  were  easily  accessible  at  the 
time  when  these  letters  were  written,  and  who  continued  to 
be  still  accessible  for  many  years  more.     It  is  simply  incred- 


CONCLUSION,  191 


ible  that  these  witnesses  should  not  have  been  frequently  and 
closely  questioned.  There  is  not  a  particle  of  reason  to 
doubt  that  St.  Paul  himself  had  seen  and  intimately  con- 
versed with  many  of  the  most  important  of  them,  as  he  de- 
clares that  he  did.  It  is  absolutely  certain  that  their  testi- 
mony was  convincing  to  him.  It  is  just  as  certain  that 
they  believed  their  own  witness,  and  that,  like  him,  they 
had  staked  their  life,  their  honor,  all  that  makes  the  world 
enjoyable,  and  all  that  makes  death  hopeful,  on  their  faith 
in  the  reality  of  the  great  fact  of  the  resurrection  of  which 
they  declared,  in  the  face  of  imprisonment,  torture  and 
death,  that  they  themselves  were  personal  witnesses. 

I  beg  you  to  observe  that  I  am  not  now  arguing  the 
sufficiency  of  this  evidence.  That  is  a  subject  by  itself, 
and  I  know  no  one  who  has  argued  it  more  powerfully,  or 
more  convincingly,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  some  part 
of  his  argument  may  require  restatement,  than  Archdeacon 
Paley.  But  what  I  am  now  endeavoring  to  show  is  that, 
if  we  had  no  part  of  the  New  Testament  to  depend  on  but 
these  four  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  or  in  other  words,  if  we  were 
to  admit  the  most  extreme  assertions  of  the  most  destruc- 
tive critics,  who  all  leave  us  these  four  epistles,  we  should 
still  have  contemporary  and  documentary  evidence  of  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  Church,  of  its  substantial  faith, 
and  of  the  ground  on  which  that  faith  was  proclaimed  and 
received.  In  those  epistles  we  find  nearly  all  the  great 
truths  of  Christianity  incidentally  recorded  and  most  of 
them  powerfully  expounded.  The  doctrine  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  simply  but  suffi- 


192  CONCLUSION . 


ciently  stated;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  as  the  Body 
of  Christ,  united  through  Him  with  the  Eternal  Father,  in- 
spired by  the  Eternal  Spirit,  and  by  Its  holy  inspiration 
guids  into  all  truth  and  all  forms  of  goodness,  is  pro- 
claimed, or  rather  assumed,  with  a  simplicity  which  requires 
no  exposition.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  criticism  will  ever 
reduce  the  Christian  documents  of  the  apostolic  age  to  these 
four  epistles.  I  believe  that  further  and  more  searching  criti- 
cism will  establish  the  authenticity  and  the  substantial  accu- 
racy of  all  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament;  yet  I  find  a  cer- 
tain satisfaction  in  the  facf  that  if  we  should  agree  to  disre- 
gard them  altogether,  the  substance  and  the  evidence  of  the 
Christian  Faith  would  remain  precisely  what  they  were  be- 
fore the  youthful  science  of  biblical  criticism  was  thought  of. 
In  point  of  fact  the  whole  tendency  of  criticism  at  this 
time  is  to  admit  the  Gospels  and  many  of  the  epistles  to  be 
of  a  far  earlier  date  than  former  critics  supposed;  but  here 
again,  so  far  as  the  Christian  evidences  are  concerned,  we 
are  under  no  necessity  to  press  that  point.  On  the  con- 
trary, if  we  should  admit  that  the  Gospels  and  the  epistles, 
with  the  exception  of  the  four  which  are  conceded  to  be 
authentic,  were  all  of  later  dates,  following  each  other  from 
the  close  of  the  first  to  the  close  of  the  second  century,  we 
should  still  find  in  them  the  strongest  conceivable  evidence 
that  the  Christian  faith  had  continued  throughout  that  pe- 
riod to  be  the  same  faith  which  St.  Paul  taught  and  which 
all  the  other  apostles  of  Christ  taught,  from  the  beginning. 
What  the  Christian  faith  was  in  the  third  century  is  easily  as- 
certained from  other  authentic  sources.     What  it  was  de- 


CONCLUSION,  193 


dared  to  be  by  the  common  voice  of  Christendom  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fourth  century  we  have  already  seen;  and 
thus,  if  we  were  so  rash  as  to  accept  the  most  extreme  opin- 
ions of  destructive  critics  of  the  New  Testament  as  ascer- 
tained certainties,  we  should  only  establish  a  new  and  irre- 
fragable historical  proof  of  the  continuous  identity  of  the 
Christian  religion  with  the  religion  which  St.  Paul  and  all 
the  Apostles  delivered  on  the  sure  ground  of  the  resurrection 
of  our  Lord,  of  which  they  were  personal  witnesses.  I  would 
gladly  pursue  this  theme  if  time  allowed;  but  time  presses, 
and  I  must  press  on  to  another  point. 

There  is  no  reason  why  any  Christian  soul  should  dread 
the  most  searching  criticism  of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and 
indeed  it  seems  to  me  that  to  dread  any  veracious  investiga- 
tion of  them  is  unconsciously  to  confess  a  secret  unfaith  in 
their  authenticity  and  authority  which  nothing  has  thus  far 
justified.  The  criticism  of  texts  and  codices  has  done 
nothing  but  good;  and  the  higher  criticism  of  the  sources 
and  composition  of  the  Sacred  Books  must  ultimately  do 
still  more  good,  by  enabling  us  to  understand  how  the 
Providence  of  God  has  preserved  for  our  instruction  and 
edification  in  these  later  times,  so  many  records  of  former 
revelations  given  to  the  fathers  in  the  Prophets.  But  there 
is  yet  another  criticism  which  is  higher  still,  the  highest 
criticism  of  all,  though  it  may  be  practised  by  you  and  me 
as  well  as  by  the  most  learned  and  accomplished  critics. 
Textual  criticism  is  properly  and  necessarily  microscopic; 
it  is  occupied  with  letters,  words  and  phrases;  so  that  a 


194  CONCLUSION. 


man  might  be  a  perfect  textual  critic,  and  yet  never  really 
know  the  Gospel.  What  is  called  the  higher  criticism  is 
broader  in  its  scope;  yet  its  true  domain  is  merely  the 
sources,  the  composition,  the  structure  and  the  history  of 
documents.  The  highest  criticism  of  which  I  speak  is  im- 
mediately addressed  to  the  divine  realities  which  give  all 
their  value  to  the  documents  and  everything  connected  with 
them.  The  most  imperfect  translation  of  the  most  imper- 
fect codex  of  any  one  of  the  gospels  reveals  to  the  least 
critical  of  readers  the  record  of  a  Life,  the  lineaments  of  a 
Character,  and  the  evidence  of  a  Person,  which  have  drawn 
from  millions  of  hearts  and  souls  the  verdict,  that  is  to  say 
the  criticism.  Truly  this  is  the  Son  of  God!  Let  us  not  be 
misled  by  a  mere  word.  Criticism,  after  all,  is  nothing  more 
than  an  exercise  of  judgment;  and  in  the  judgment  of  life 
and  character  the  student  may  be  far  less  trustworthy  than 
the  peasant  or  the  man  of  business.  Only  the  virtuous  man 
can  rightly  judge  the  virtue  of  a  character;  only  a  spiritual 
man  can  rightly  judge  the  evidence  of  spiritual  qualities; 
only  a  holy  man  can  recognize  holiness;  only  the  pure  in 
heart  can  see  God.  So  it  may  happen,  and  it  happens  every 
day,  that  the  Son  of  God,  revealed  in  the  story  of  the  Gos- 
pels, is  seen,  and  known  and  worshipped  by  very  babes  in 
knowledge,  while  the  wise  and  learned  neither  see  nor  know 
Him.  It  is  with  the  heart  that  a  man  believeth  unto  right- 
eousness.  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see 
God!  That,  surely,  is  the  highest  criticism  of  all  which 
brings  to  the  investigation  of  a  subject  the  only  instrument 
with  which  it  can  be  seen,  or  known,  or  rightly  judged;  and 


CONCLUSION.  195 


it  is  by  the  exercise  of  that  highest  of  all  critical  faculties  that 
the  adoring  recognition  of  mankind  in  general  has  been 
given,  and  always  will  be  given,  to  the  self-evident  divinity 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  such  a  judgment  is  not  a  truly 
rational  judgment  because  it  is  not  consciously  reached  by 
the  forms  and  processes  of  logic.  What  we  call  the  com- 
mon sense  of  mankind  on  any  subject  is  never  reached  in 
that  way.  Yet  it  is  always  a  satisfaction  when  such  a 
judgment  can  be  justified  to  the  understanding  and  the 
reason;  and  I  wish  now  to  suggest  one  line  of  thought  out 
of  many  which  seem  to  me  to  show  that  the  Life  and  Char- 
acter of  Jesus  Christ,  as  they  are  portrayed  in  the  Gospels, 
are  alone  sufficient  to  convince  the  reason  that  He  was 
verily  the  Son  of  God. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  no  one  but  a  man  of  the  high- 
est genius  should  expose  himself  to  the  dangers  of  deceit. 
One  falsehood  leads  to  another,  and  that  to  a  third,  and 
soon,  until  the  man  is  involved  in  a  labyrinth  from  which 
there  is  no  escape.  Sometimes  memory  proves  treacherous; 
the  unfortunate  forgets  what  he  has  said,  and  then  he  con- 
tradicts himself  to  his  own  confusion,  as  is  often  seen  in  courts 
of  justice  and  elsewhere.  The  curious  tricks  of  chance  and 
circumstance  can  never  be  foreseen.  Demonstrations  of 
the  truth  come  forward  in  the  strangest  way,  by  the  oddest 
and  most  whimsical  means,  and  in  such  a  form  that  they 
can  be  neither  faced  down  nor  eluded  by  the  most  plausi- 
ble denials.  Hence,  unless  a  man  could  be  sure  that  he 
will  never  forget  a  word  of  the  falsehood  he  is  tempted  to 


196  CONCLUSION. 


Utter,  unless  he  had  more  than  prophetic  foresight  to  an- 
ticipate the  possibilities  of  chance,  and  unless  he  could  as- 
sure himself  of  a  more  than  diabolical  power  to  cover  one 
falsehood  with  another  to  the  end  of  time — unless,  in  short, 
he  were  endowed  with  the  ingenuity,  the  versatility  and  the 
very  genius  of  the  Father  of  lies,  he  can  never  be  certain 
that  the  idlest  falsehood  in  the  world  might  not  involve  him 
in  ruin. 

The  most  difficult  of  all  falsehoods  is  the  simulation  of 
character.  Even  when  its  purpose  is  innocent,  as  in  the 
dramatic  art,  nothing  short  of  genius  suffices  to  ensure  suc- 
cess. The  player  struts  and  frets  one  little  hour  upon  the 
stage,  and  yet,  though  thousands  of  well-educated  and  la- 
borious people  study  hard  to  represent  particular  characters 
in  the  few  brief  scenes  of  a  play,  not  one  in  a  thousand  of 
them  all  attains  to  excellence.  One  false  ring  in  the  voice, 
the  least  exaggeration  of  display,  a  momentary  lapse  of 
memory,  dispels  the  illusion  he  is  striving  to  produce  ;  and 
so,  with  every  aid  that  art  can  furnish,  the  actor  fails  to 
sustain  a  character  for  the  brief  hour  of  his  engagement. 
When  an  actor  does  succeed,  the  world  raves  of  his  genius. 
Fame  and  fortune  are  his  own,  because  the  task  of  simu- 
lating character  is  recognized  to  be  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult that  man  can  undertake. 

It  is  very  clear  that  the  difficulty  must  increase  or  dimin- 
ish with  the  complexity  or  the  simplicity  of  the  character 
which  is  assumed.  An  actor  might  easily  succeed  as  Ho- 
ratio who  would  i::iake  a  sorry  failure  as  the  wise,  mad 
Prince  of  Denn^nit^^  To  represent  the  highest  characters 


CONCLUSION.  197 


of  the  drama  nothing  less  than  the  highest  genius  will  avail. 
And  all  this,  though  a  higher  genius  than  the  actor's  has 
already  conceived  the  character,  predisposed  its  situations, 
and  composed  the  very  words  the  actor  is  to  speak.  That 
is  the  poet's  task.  How  wonderful  it  is  !  How  impossible 
for  anything  but  genius  to  achieve  !  Since  time  began,  not 
twenty  men  have  mastered  it,  and  only  one  of  them  reigns 
like  a  sun  in  the  firmament  of  art ;  the  noblest  of  the  rest 
are  like  noon-day  moons  beside  him.  Thus,  perfectly  to 
simulate  a  great  human  character  demands  the  loftiest  ef- 
forts of  two  men  of  genius  ;  one  to  create  it,  and  the  other 
to  assume  it  in  the  action  of  a  few  brief  scenes. 

What  should  we  think  of  a  person  who  should  attempt — 
not  for  an  hour  upon  the  stage,  not  in  the  predetermined 
situations  of  a  drama,  not  in  the  presence  of  a  limited  and 
sympathetic  audience,  but  for  years  together,  under  every  cir- 
cumstance that  friendship  could  create  or  malignity  devise, 
in  the  familiarity  of  daily  intercourse  and  in  the  very  hour 
and  article  of  death — what  should  we  tiiink  of  a  person  who 
should  undertake  both  to  improvise  and  to  simulate,  not 
only  the  mightiest  and  most  majestic  of  human  characters, 
but  a  character  which  transcends  the  utmost  reach  of  hu- 
man imagination,  the  Character  of  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  .? 
Yet,  according  to  the  Gospels,  Jesus  did  conceive  that  Char- 
acter, bore  it  for  a  life-time,  never  failed  nor  faltered  in  it, 
lived  it  through,  and  died  in  it,  with  its  celestial  glories 
radiant  in  His  crown  of  thorns.  To  pretend  that  a  few 
uneducated  and  deluded  fishermen  could  have  constructed 
such  a  Character  is  sheer  absurdity ;  and  only  to  simulate 


198 


CONCLUSION, 


that  Character  successfully  would  have  sufficed  to  prove 
that  Jesus  must  be  more  than  m.an.  To  sustain  it  fault- 
lessly would  have  surpassed  the  power  of  an  archangel 
ruined.  To  have  borne  it  falsely  through  a  life  of  perfect 
innocence,  with  nothing  to  be  gained  by  it  but  the  reward  of 
infamous  and  enormous  guilt,  would  have  been  to  present 
the  impossible  spectacle  of  principled  mendacity  as  the  mo- 
tive of  spotless  holiness,  and  of  consummate  wisdom  acting 
for  a  whole  life-time  with  consummate  folly.  Yet  that  is  the 
Character  which  the  Christ  sustained,  and  nowhere  in  the 
action  or  the  utterance  of  that  transcendent  drama  has 
the  world,  to  this  day,  found  one  flaw.  To  this  day  His 
calm  challenge  to  His  enemies  remains  unanswered  :  Which 
of  you  convicteth  Me  of  fault  .'*  The  world  has  sought  to 
find  one  single  blot  in  that  most  marvelous  Life  that  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  perfectness  of  the  Eternal  Son  of 
God;  and  it  has  sought  in  vain.  Faults  in  His  followers, 
God  help  them,  it  has  found  enough.  Flaws  in  the  Gospels 
it  has  magnified  more  than  enough.  In  the  very  act  of  do- 
ing so,  it  has  shown  the  inanity  of  the  idea  that  the  Gospel 
story  is,  or  can  be,  an  invention.  But  of  Christ  Himself 
the  world  is  still  forced  to  repeat  the  verdict  of  unhappy 
Pilate,  and  confesses  that  it  finds  no  fault  in  this  Man — not 
one  word,  one  act,  nor  one  single  gesture  that  mars  the 
majesty  or  sweetness  of  His  Divine  Humanity.  The  Char- 
acter which  He  claimed  is  perfectly  original;  it  is  without 
a  parallel  in  human  imagination.  His  method  of  discourse 
was  without  a  model,  as  it  is  without  a  copy  ;  and  sayings 
erroneously  attributed  to  Him  by  apocryphal    writers  are 


CONCLUSION.  199 


as  easily  distinguished  from  His  true  sayings  as  modern 
English  from  the  English  of  Chaucer.  His  Life  would  be 
inconceivable,  if  it  were  not  a  fact.  Rousseau,  comparing 
His  death  with  that  of  Socrates,  makes  the  just  distinction 
that  "Socrates  died  like  a  philosopher,  but  Jesus  died  like 
a  God."  Taking  the  whole  together,  we  may  safely  say 
that  the  conception  alone,  and  much  more  the  perfect  pre- 
sentation of  it,  would  be  impossible,  if  it  were  not  true. 
The  coldest,  calmest  reasoning  compels  us  to  the  utterance 
of  the  amazed  centurion.  Truly,  this  was  the  Son  of  God  ! 

For  my  own  part,  I  am  frank  to  confess  that  this  argu- 
ment is  that  which,  more  than  any  other,  constrains  me  to 
believe  the  Gospel  to  be  self-evidently  true.  I  read  the  sev- 
enteenth chapter  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  John,  in 
which  the  evangelist  has  recorded  Christ's  last  prayer  on  this 
earth — a  prayer  made  in  the  immediate  prospect  of  His 
death.  It  does  not  trouble  me  in  the  least  to  think  that 
this  or  that  verse  may  not  contain  the  exact  words  used  by 
the  Saviour,  or  that  other  words  which  He  did  use  may 
have  been  forgotten  and  omitted  after  many  years.  That 
prayer,  on  the  face  of  it,  is  not  an  historical  fiction  of  the 
evangelist;  it  is  transparently  a  report.  Satisfied  of  its  sub- 
stantial accuracy  as  a  report,  I  examine  it,  not  coldly  but 
appreciatively  and  sympathetically.  I  am  moved  by  its 
unspeakable  tenderness,  by  the  pathos  of  its  self-forgetful- 
ness,  by  its  great  humility,  by  its  wondrous  majesty,  in  all 
of  which  I  see  the  perfect  dutifulness  of  a  child  of  man 
together  with  the  consciousness  and  the  recollections  of 


200  CONCLUSION. 


the  Son  of  God.  The  very  gesture  is  impressive.  "Jesus 
lifted  up  His  eves  to  heaven  and  said,  Father,  the  hour  is 
come  ;  glorify  Thy  Son  that  Thy  Son  also  may  glorify  Thee. 
I  have  glorified  Thee  on  the  earth  ;  I  have  finished  the 
work  that  Thou  gavest  Me  to  do.  And  now,  O  Father,  glo- 
rify Thou  Me  with  the  glory  that  I  had  with  Thee  before  the 
world  was.  I  have  manifested  Thy  Name  unto  the  men 
that  Thou  gavest  IMe  out  of  the  world;  Thine  they  were,  and 
Thou  gavest  them  Me,  and  they  have  kept  Thy  word.  And 
all  mine  are  thine,  and  thine  are  mine  ;  and  I  am  glorified 
in  them.  And  now  I  am  no  more  in  the  world,  but  these 
are  in  the  world,  and  I  come  to  Thee.  Holy  Father,  keep 
through  thine  own  Name  those  whom  Thou  hast  given  Me, 
that  they  may  be  one  as  We  are.  I  pray  not  that  Thou 
shouldest  take  them  out  of  the  world,  but  that  Thou  should- 
est  keep  them  from  the  evil.  As  Thou  hast  sent  Me  into 
the  world,  even  so  have  I  sent  them  into  the  world  ;  and 
the  glory  which  Thou  gavest  Me  I  have  given  them,  that 
they  may  be  one  as  We  are  one.  I  in  them,  and  Thou  in 
Me,  that  they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one,  and  that  the 
world  may  know  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me,  and  hast  loved 
them  as  Thou  hast  loved  Me.  Father,  I  will  that  they  also 
whom  Thou  hast  given  Me  be  with  Me  where  I  am  ;  that 
they  may  behold  Thy  glory  which  Thou  hast  given  Me  ; 
for  Thou  lovedst  Me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 

0  righteous  Father,  the  world  hath  not  known  Thee,  but 

1  have  known  Thee,  and  these  have  known  that  Thou  hast 
sent  Me."  I  ask  myself.  Are  these  the  words  of  an  un- 
sound mind  ?  and  I  reply  that  if  ever  there  was  sanity  on 


CONCLUSION.  201 


earth,  it  is  in  these  words  and  in  the  Man  who  spoke  them 
face  to  face  with  death.  But  if  these  are  words  of  sanity, 
and  if  the  Man  Who  spoke  them  was  a  sane  Man,  then 
these  words  are  true,  and  the  Man  Who  spoke  them  was 
the  Son  of  God,  preparing  to  return  into  the  well-remem- 
bered glory  He  had  had  with  the  Eternal  Father  before  the 
world  was.  No  other  alternative  is  possible.  The  writer 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  never  did,  and  never  could  have  fabri- 
cated Jesus  Christ ;  never  did,  and  never  could  have  imag- 
ined such  a  Son  of  God;  never  did,  nor  could,  nor  would, 
have  been  guilty  of  the  amazing  blasphemy  of  putting  such 
words  into  the  mouth  of  any  man  who  had  not  spoken 
them.  In  a  time  of  great  perplexity  it  was  these  words  of 
Jesus  Christ — of  which  I  am  confident  that  criticism  can 
never  take  away  the  self-evident,  self-demonstrating  power 
— that  enabled  me,  nay,  compelled  me,  to  believe  that  He 
Who  spoke  them  could  have  been  none  other  than  the  Son 
of  God,  and  consequently  that  the  Gospel  story  is  and  must 
be  substantially  true.  That  point  settled,  it  followed  merely 
as  a  corollary  that  the  Church  He  founded  here  on  earth 
must  still  exist,  and  that  the  one  Faith  of  its  Head  and 
Master,  once  committed  to  that  Church,  must  be  still  held 
by  that  Body.  Or,  in  other  words,  that  Christianity,  as  it  is 
held  and  professed  by  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  followers 
of  Christ,  must  certainly  be  true  in  those  particulars,  at 
least,  in  which  they  stilf  remain  one  in  faith  and  life. 

But  is  not  the  very  notion  of  an  incarnation  of  Godhead 
in  the  person  of  any  man  inherently  incredible .?     In  the 


202  CONCLUSION. 


world  of  mythology  it  is  most  assuredly  so ;  but  not  so  in 
the  world  of  science.  In  the  last  lecture  we  saw  how  the 
Divine  Reason  may  abide  in  this  reasonable,  though  finite, 
universe,  and  how  the  Divine  Power  may  be  immanent 
therein,  while  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  is  ever  separated 
from  the  Divine  Essence.  Thus  we  saw  how  the  universe 
in  all  its  parts  is  a  perpetual  evidence  of  the  Divine  Presence 
in  it.  We  saw  moreover  that  it  is  in  man  himself  that  the 
reason  and  holiness  of  God  are  made  most  clearly  evident 
by  the  intellectual  and  moral  nature  which  must  have  been 
derived  from  God  as  surely  as  life  and  physical  strength. 
Thus  nature  itself  is  an  embodiment  of  God,  so  far  as  it  is 
possible  for  nature  to  embody  the  Divine  ;  and  every  living 
man,  in  all  but  one  respect,  is  an  incarnation  of  God. 
That  one  respect  is  his  individual  personality.  Every  man's 
personality  is  his  own,  or  rather  it  is  himself,  since  it  is  that 
which  differentiates  him  from  every  other  creature  of  God. 
Neither  nature  in  general  nor  the  individual  man  are  incar- 
nations of  the  Supreme  Personality  of  God.  Yet  it  is  not 
impossible,  and  therefore  not  incredible,  that,  as  God  re- 
veals His  reason  and  His  power  in  nature  and  in  man,  He 
might  also  reveal  His  Person  in  the  highest  form  in  which 
such  a  revelation  can  be  made  to  creatures  like  ourselves. 
That  form  could  be  no  higher  than  our  own,  since  ours  is 
the  highest  we  are  capable  of  apprehending.  It  must  there- 
fore be  a  human  form ;  and  yet  it  could  not  be  the  form  of 
any  man  having  a  personal  individuality  of  his  own,  for 
then  the  personality  of  that  individual  man  would  be  re- 
vealed, not  the  very  personality  of  God.     It  seems,  then, 


CONCLUSION.  203 


that  no  man  born  into  the  world  as  other  men  are  could 
have  been  a  true  Theophorus,  an  Incarnation  of  the  Divine 
Person.  A  body  must  be  specially  prepared,  a  true  human 
body  with  a  true  and  perfect  human  nature,  but  so  united 
with  the  Divine  Nature  as,  with  It,  to  be  one  unique  and 
perfect  Personality,  at  once  human  and  divine.  In  such  a 
God-man  God  could  be  incarnate  and  reveal  Himself  to 
the  utmost  extent  to  which  even  God  can  ever  reveal  Him- 
self to  creatures  of  our  order  in  creation.  In  such  a  God- 
man  we  believe  He  did  reveal  Himself.  We  find  nothing 
incredible  about  it,  not  even  His  amazing  goodness  and 
condescension  ;  but  in  what  has  just  been  said  there  is  an 
illustration  of  the  closeness  with  which  every  essential  part 
of  a  true  Christology  fits  in  with  every  other  part.  Thus  it 
is  sometimes  asked  why  Jesus  Christ  must  needs  have  been 
conceived  and  born  in  any  extraordinary  way,  and  some 
modern  theologians  have  been  hasty  in  concluding  that  the 
story  of  his  Virgin-birth  is  merely  legendary,  or,  at  most, 
of  merely  secondary  importance.  But  if  Christ  was  truly 
the  Son  of  God,  sent  into  the  world  to  reveal  the  Divine 
Personality,  the  story  of  the  Virgin-birth  is  necessarily  true, 
since  in  no  mere  son  of  man  could  the  sublime  Personality 
of  God  be  manifested  to  the  sons  of  men.  The  more  we 
study  the  gospels  with  the  purpose  of  veraciously  appre- 
ciating the  Character  and  Person  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  more 
surely,  I  believe,  will  that  highest  criticism  constrain  us  to 
find  in  Him  at  once  "the  highest,  holiest  Manhood,"  and 
"all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead"  bodily  revealed.  After 
such  a  study  of  the  gospels,  we  are  prepared  to  understand 


204  CONCLUSION 


the  calm  conviction  with  which  an  Apostle  wrote:  "That 
which  was  from  the  beginning,  which  we  have  heard,  which 
we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked  upon 
and  our  hands  have  handled  of  the  Word  of  Life — for  the 
Life  was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness, 
and  show  unto  you  that  Eternal  Life  which  was  with  the 
Father  and  was  manifested  unto  us — that  which  we  have 
seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you,  that  ye  also  may  have 
fellowship  with  us;  and  truly  our  fellowship  is  with  the 
Father,  and  with  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ." 

But  here,  it  will  be  said,  we  are  touching  the  miraculous 
side  of  Christianity,  and  we  shall  be  told  that  the  nineteenth 
century  is  incredulous  of  miracle.  Strange,  is  it  not,  that 
a  century  which  has  accomplished  thousands  of  wonders 
that  any  former  century  would  have  regarded  as  miracles, 
should  reject  the  miraculous?  What  are  these  nineteenth 
century  miracles  ?  Are  they  violations  of  the  laws  of  na- 
ture }  Are  they  suspensions  of  the  established  order  of  na- 
ture ?  Are  they  arbitrary  interferences  with  the  course  of 
nature?  Not  at  all.  They  are  simply  intelligent  applica- 
tions of  the  laws  established  in  the  orderly  course  of  nature, 
so  as  to  produce  results  which  we  desire.  By  his  intelli- 
gence man  is  enabled  more  and  more  to  assume  the  lord- 
ship of  the  unintelligent  creation,  not  by  violating,  or  sus- 
pending, or  interfering  with,  the  laws  of  the  Creator,  but  by 
learning  what  those  laws  are,  and  by  applying  them  to 
bring  about  certain  desired  results.  Man  himself  is  a  part 
of  nature,  and  whatever  man  does  is  within  the  course  and 


CONCLUSION.  205 


order  of  nature.  When  he  changes  the  face  of  nature,  clear- 
ing it  of  primeval  forests,  planting  a  continent  with  new 
flora  and  introducing  new  fauna,  turning  the  course  of 
streams,  draining  natural  lakes  and  profoundly  modifying 
even  the  meteorological  operations  of  the  atmosphere,  all 
this  is  as  much  within  the  course  of  nature  and  as  thor- 
oughly according  to  the  laws  of  nature  as  the  ebb  and  flow 
of  tides  or  the  evolution  and  differentiation  of  species.  But 
if,  as  we  believe,  the  Creator  Himself  abides  in  nature,  then 
there  is  nothing  incredible  or  unreasonable  in  the  thought 
that  He  can  apply  the  laws  which  He  Himself  has  made, 
and  which  He  alone  perfectly  understands,  in  countless 
ways  of  which  man  has  thus  far  no  knowledge.  If  He 
should  ever  do  so,  it  might  seem  to  human  ignorance  that 
the  laws  of  nature  had  been  over-ruled  or  suspended,  not 
because  it  must  be  so,  but  because  it  would  seem  to  men  to 
be  so.  In  the  sense  of  a  violation,  or  suspension,  or  inter- 
ference with  the  laws  of  nature — which  are  as  much  the  laws 
of  God  as  the  Ten  Commandmants — I  do  not  believe  there 
ever  was  a  miracle;  and  in  any  other  sense  a  miracle  isj 
neither  more  nor  less  than  an  unexplained  phenomenon. 
In  any  other  sense,  therefore,  nature  itself  is  one  continuous 
and  universal  miracle ;  since  neither  nature  itself  nor  any 
one  of  its  phenomena  has  been  or  can  be  explained.  Science, 
we  are  told,  takes  no  account  of  the  supernatural;  and  yet 
science  itself,  when  it  rises  highest  and  sees  furthest,  con- 
fesses that  the  nature  it  investigates  must  have  issued  from 
a  source  beyond  nature,  so  that  the  supernatural  is  the  very 
origin  and  base  of  nature.     Thus  science  testifies  at  last,  as 


206  CONCLUSION 


history  testifies  from  first  to  last,  that — to  use  the  language 
of  Max  Muller — "  nothing  is  so  natural  as  the  supernat- 
ural." 

Now,  if  the  Origin  and  Cause  of  all  nature  were  to  mani- 
fest Himself  in  the  Form  of  a  Man,  I  submit  to  you  that  it 
M'ould  be  incredible  that  He  should  not  do  some  things, 
nay,  innumerable  things,  that  would  seem  to  be  miraculous 
to  other  men  simply  because  other  men  could  not  know 
how  they  were  done.  So  clear  is  this,  that,  if  there  were 
no  miraculous  element  in  the  Gospel  story,  the  absence  of 
miracle  would  be  a  valid  objection  to  the  truth  of  the  story. 
Men  would  rightly  refuse  to  believe  that  Divinity  could  ap- 
pear among  men  without  exhibiting  some  signs  of  more 
than  human  knowledge  in  some  marvellous  and  inexplica- 
ble acts  of  power.  Not,  however,  because,  in  such  a  case. 
Divinity  must  abrogate  its  own  laws,  but  because  it  could, 
and  surely  would,  apply  those  laws  in  innumerable  ways 
of  which  even  the  science  of  the  nineteenth  century  knows 
nothing. 

I  confess  that  I  am  not  greatly  concerned  at  the  ingenious 
attacks  which  are  directed  against  particular  miracles  re- 
lated by  the  evangelists.  I  am  not  at  all  disturbed  when  I 
am  told  that  the  occasional  "troubling"  of  the  pool  of 
Bethesda — which  the  evangelist  himself  supposed  to  be 
done  by  an  angel — was  a  perfectly  natural  phenomenon, 
which  may  be  witnessed  to  this  day  in  at  least  one  other 
well  at  Jerusalem;  but  I  am  amused  to  see  how  the  attack 
upon  the  miracle  brings  out  a  confirmation  of  the  history. 
I  am  not  disconcerted  when  Mr.   Huxley  turns  all  the  bat- 


CONCLUSION.  207 


teries  of  his  great  knowledge  and  his  piercing  wit  on  what 
he  calls   *'the  swIne-miracle  "   of  Gadara;  but  I  am  inter- 
ested to  observe  how  strangely  the  new  investigations  of 
hypnotism   are   showing  possibilities  of  a  double  or  triple 
consciousness  in  human  beings  which  would  go  far  to  ac- 
count for  all  the  recorded  phenomena  of  demoniac  posses- 
sion ;  and  I  am  yet  more  deeply  interested  to  learn  that  ; 
possession  itself,  that  is  to  say,  the  complete  possibility  of 
a  domination  of  one  personal  and  voluntary  being  by  the   j, 
will  of  another,  is  at  last  a  verified  fact  of  science.     It  would  j-; 
not  disconcert  me  in  the  least  if  every  one  of  our  Saviour's  |  i 
recorded  miracles  were  to  be  explained  to  have  been  only 
natural  occurrences,  so  far  as  the  forces  or  powers  applied 
In  doing  them  are  concerned.      I  myself  believe  all  of  them   f 
to  have  been  such,  and  I  fully  expect   modern  science  to  / 
explain  some  of  those  marvellous  works  in  that  way.     When 
it  shall  have  done  so,  it  will  but  confirm  the  credibility  of 
the  Gospel  narrative ;  it  will  take  nothing  from  the  evidence 
of  Divinity  in  Him  Who  wrought  such   wonders  at  a  time 
when  no  science  had   discovered  how  they  could  be  done. 
It  has  been  often  said  that  miracle,  which  was  once  regarded 
as  the  main  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  has  now  be- 
come its  greatest  difficulty;  but  if  I  am   not  mistaken,  the 
time  is   fast  approaching   when    science    will   remove  the 
greater  part  of  that   difficulty,  and  simultaneously  confirm 
the  Gospel  history,  by  showing  that  some,  at  least,  of  the  \ 
Gospel  miracles  were  no  more  miraculous  than  a  conversa- 
tion through  the  telephone  or  even  the  lifting  of  a  pebble^ 
from  the  ground.     Let  us  not  be  too  easily  scared  by  a 


208  CONCLUSION. 


mere  word  used  in  an  obscure  sense.  Miracle  is  a  word 
which  need  scare  no  Christian  from  His  faith,  if  he  remem- 
bers that  a  miracle  is  nothing  more  than  an  unexplained 
event  or  an  inexplicable  phenomenon,  that  is  to  say,  a  fact 
or  an  occurrence,  the  cause  or  method  of  which  he  does 
not  know.  It  is  often  hard  enough  to  draw  just  conclu- 
sions from  partial  knowledge;  it  is  always  folly  to  attempt 
to  reason  from  our  ignorance;  it  is  the  very  lunacy  of  self- 
conceit  to  imagine  that  nothing  can  be  true  which  we  are 
not  able  to  explain.  If  our  beliefs  were  to  be  limited  by 
our  po^ver  to  explain  facts  and  their  phenomena,  we  should 
be  able  to  believe  in  nothing — not  even  in  our  own  exist- 
ence. 

With  only  one  other  suggestion  concerning  the  evidences 
of  Christianity  this  most  imperfect  course  of  lectures  must 
be  closed.  In  all  scientific  investigation  it  is  an  accepted 
rule  that  assertions  of  fact  which  have  any  reasonable  ap- 
pearance of  probability  ought  to  be  subjected  to  a  process 
of  rigorous  verification,  or,  in  other  words,  that  they  must 
be  practically  tested.  We  are  more  than  willing  that  Chris- 
tianity shall  be  put  to  that  test.  We  insist  that  it  has  a 
just  claim  to  be  verified.  No  candid  man  can  affirm  that 
Christianity  is  intrinsically  absurd  or  incredible;  we  main- 
tain, on  the  contrary,  that,  to  say  the  very  least,  it  is  highly 
probable,  and  that  the  advance  of  science  is  daily  adding  to 
its  probability.  On  the  strictest  scientific  grounds,  there- 
fore, we  are  entitled  to  say  that  no  man  can  rationally  re- 
ject it  without  testing  it  for  himself. 


CONCLUSION.  209 


The  test  is  possible;  it  is  simple;  it  is  rational;  it  is  not 
only  safe — it  is  salutary;  and  it  is  proposed  by  Christ  Him- 
self. No  one  denies  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  great  Teacher, 
and  in  ethics  the  greatest  of  all  Teachers.  Consequently  it 
is  possible,  rational,  safe  and  salutary  to  accept  Him  as  our 
Teacher  and  adopt  His  moral  principles  of  life.  If  we  do 
so,  He  Himself  assures  us  that  we  shall  be  happier  and 
better  men  and  that  as  we  grow  in  happiness  and  goodness 
we  shall  likewise  grow  in  knowledge  and  discernment  of  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  His  doctrine.  "  Take  my  yoke  upon 
you,"  He  says;  and  by  this  He  does  not  mean  some  artifi- 
cial rules  of  life  which  He  would  lay  upon  us,  but  that  yoke 
of  meek  and  loving  dutifulness  which  He  Himself  bore  in 
His  earthly  life.  ''Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of 
Me,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  in  your  lives."  That  is  the  tem- 
poral reward  of  those  who  take  Christ  as  their  supreme 
Teacher;  but  another  and  more  precious  promise  is  attached 
to  the  same  course.  ' '  If  any  man  is  willing, "  He  says,  ' '  to 
do  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  he  shall  know 
of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God. "  We  are  ready  to 
stand  by  that  test  and  to  abide  its  consequences;  and  we 
hold  it  to  be  only  rational  to  test  Christ's  method  in  the  only 
way  in  which  it  can  be  tested. 

We  admit,  indeed,  that  the  test  proposed  calls  into  play 
other  faculties  than  those  which  are  exercised  in  logic;  but 
then  Christ  appeals  to  the  whole  man  and  not  only  to  his 
powers  of  syllogistic  argument.  It  is  to  the  whole  man  that 
He  offers  His  guidance,  not  only  to  his  reason.  It  is  to  the 
whole  man  that  He  promises  the  demonstration  of  the  truth 


210  CONCLUSION. 

which  is  Himself.  And  man  is  more  than  mind;  he  is  a 
living  soul,  with  affections,  passions,  principles  of  life  and 
judgment,  which  no  syllogistic  process  can  reduce  to  forms 
of  logic.  In  all  matters  of  life,  that  is  to  say  in  all  mat- 
ters of  supreme  importance,  it  is  the  man,  and  not  merely  his 
reason,  which  sits  in  judgment  and  believes  or  disbelieves. 
**  There  is  a  sense,"  says  Principal  Caird,  "  in  which  all  in- 
tense feeling  transcends  the  limits  of  logic,  and  is  capable 
of  a  richness  and  fulness  of  content  which  baffle  definition 
and  outstrip  the  comprehension  of  the  hard  and  fast  cate- 
gories of  the  understanding.  Our  most  exalted  spiritual  ex- 
periences are  those  which  are  least  capable  of  being  ex- 
pressed by  precise  logical  formulae."  *' There  are  subjects 
of  grave  moment  and  questions  of  primary  importance," 
says  Joubert,  "  in  which  the  governing  ideas  ought  to  spring 
from  the  sentiments;  all  is  lost  if  they  are  taken  from  else- 
where. To  think  what  one  does  not  feel  is  to  lie  to  oneself. 
Whatever  one  thinks,  he  ought  to  think  with  his  whole  be- 
ing, soul  and  body."  *'  The  heart,"  says  Pascal,  ''  has  rea- 
sons of  its  own  of  which  reason  knows  nothing;  "  and  poor 
Buckle  says  that  the  heart  is  right.  ''The  emotions,"  he 
tells  us,  **are  as  much  a  part  of  us  as  the  understanding; 
they  are  as  truthful;  they  are  as  likely  to  be  right.  Though 
their  view  is  different  from  that  of  the  understanding,  it  is  not 
capricious.  They  obey  fixed  laws;  they  follow  an  uniform 
and  orderly  course;  they  run  in  sequences;  they  have  their 
logic  and  methods  of  inference."  Professor  Tyndal  declares 
that  "the  circle  of  human  nature  is  not  complete  without 
the  arc  of  feeling  and  emotion. "     I  think  I  need  not  further 


CONCLUSION,  211 


press  the  truth  that  in  all  matters  of  supreme  importance, 
and  consequently  in  all  matters  of  life  and  religion,  the  emo- 
tional nature,  that  is  to  say,  the  moral  nature,  is  as  important 
a  factor  in  conducing  to  a  just  judgment  as  the  understanding 
or  the  reason.  At  all  events,  I  think  you  will  admit  that  in 
all  such  matters,  a  right  state  of  the  moral  and  emotional 
nature  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  just  judgment. 

And  a  right  condition  of  the  moral  nature  is  precisely  that 
which  a  true  following  of  the  ethics  of  our  Lord  is  calculated 
to  produce.  By  stilling  the  turbulence  of  the  passions,  by 
purifying  the  affections,  by  exalting  the  aspirations,  it  pre- 
pares the  mind  and  heart  and  soul  of  man  for  the  clear  vis- 
ion of  truth.  But  we  are  not  to  think  of  the  ethics  of  Jesus 
as  a  hard  and  fast  code  of  rules.  More  than  in  any  or  all 
even  of  His  own  recorded  precepts,  the  ethics  of  Jesus  are  to 
be  learned  by  studying  Himself  There  is  no  question  of 
conduct  so  obscure  that  it  may  not  be  resolved  at  once 
and  positively  if  a  true  student  of  Jesus  will  only  ask  him- 
self. What  would  Jesus  Christ  have  done  in  this  case  ?  The 
answer  will  never  be  ambiguous.  The  right  will  always  shine 
out  clearer  than  the  light  of  day;  and  if  the  case  is  such  that 
two  or  more  courses  of  conduct  might  be  alike  lawful,  it 
will  always  appear  that  one  of  them  is  nobler  than  the  rest, 
and  that  the  choice  of  Christ  would  have  been  the  noblest. 
I  am  persuaded  that  by  such  a  personal  following  of  Christ 
there  will  never  fail  to  grow  up  in  the  student  a  more  and 
more  vivid  sense  of  the  continual  and  living  Presence  of  the 
Master  whom  he  follows,  which  nothing  short  of  the  reality 
of  that  Presence  could  account  for.     I  believe,  too,  that 


212  CONCLUSION. 


there  will  grow  in  him  a  wondering  love  and  trust  of  his 
Unseen  Friend  which  no  logic  could  formulate;  and  that,  at 
last,  my  friends,  is  the  one  way,  and  the  only  way,  to  verify 
the  claims  of  Christianity.  Without  that  verification  no 
other  evidence  is  final  or  complete  for  any  human  soul. 
After  it,  other  evidences  may  be  useful;  they  are  never  indis- 
pensable. Professor  Ruskin  says,  "There  is  but  one  chance 
of  life  in  admitting  so  far  the  possibility  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity  as  to  try  it  on  its  own  terms.  *  Show  me  a  sign 
first,  and  I  will  come,'  you  say.  '  No,'  answers  God,  '  come 
first,  and  then  you  shall  see  a  sign. ' "  So  it  has  been  in  the 
life  of  the  poetic  prophet  of  this  century,  Alfred  Tennyson. 
Fifty  years  ago,  he  gave  the  tribute  of  obedience  to  the 

"  Strong  Son  of  God,  Immortal  Love 

Whom  we,  who  have  not  seen  His  face 
By  faith,  and  faith  alone  embrace, 
Believing  where  we  cannot  prove." 

In  God,  as  He  is  revealed  in  Christ,  the  poet  found  assur- 
ance of  a  hope  for  men : 

"  Thou  wilt  not  leave  us  in  the  dust; 

Thou  madest  man,  he  knows  not  why; 
He  thinks  he  was  not  made  to  die; 
And  Thou  has  made  him;  Thou  art  just 


t  ' 


Not  this  faith  alone,  however,  would  have  made  Alfred 
Tennyson  a  Christian,  if,  musing  on  the  mystery  of  human 

will,  he  had  not  learned  to  see  and  say, 

"  Our  wills  are  ours  to  make  them  Thine." 

Having  learned  that  one  supreme  and  indispensable  les- 


CONCLUSION.  213 


son,  and  having  ruled  his  will  to  follow  his  Master's  will, 
he  now  can  wait  serenely  for  that  ' '  Crossing  of  the  Bar  " 
which  awaits  us  all,  smiling  away  the  sorrow  of  the  parting 
hour,  and  looking  for  the  coming  vision  of  the  Friend  who 
has  walked  beside  him  all  along  his  earthly  journey.  So 
may  it  be  to  you  and  me,  my  friends.  May  we,  too,  have 
the  confidence  of  a  certain  faith  and  the  comfort  of  a  reason- 
able, religious  and  holy  hope  when  the  time  shall  come  for 
us  to  cross  the  bar  !  As  the  shadows  of  the  evening  gather, 
may  we  find  ourselves  ready  and  glad  to  sing  the  A^unc 
Dimittis  of  the  poet  of  our  time: 

"  Sunset  and  evening  star, 

And  one  clear  call  for  me  ! 
And  may  tliere  be  no  moaning  of  the  bar 
When  I  put  out  to  sea; 

"  But  such  a  tide  as,  moving,  seems  asleep. 
Too  full  for  sound  and  foam, 
When  that  which  drew  from  out  the  boundless  deep 
Turns  again  home. 

"Twilight  and  evening  bell, 
And  after  that  the  dark  ! 
And  may  there  be  no  sadness  of  farewell 
When  1  embark ! 

*'  For,  though  from  our  bourne  of  time  and  place 
The  flood  may  bear  me  far, 
I  hope  to  see  my  Pilot  face  to  face 
When  I  have  crost  the  bar  !  " 


ERRATUM. 


Page  88,  line  ii   from  bottom,  for  "homogeneity,"  read 
heterogeneity . 


THE  BEAUTIFUL  LAND: 

PALESTINE, 

HISTORICAL,  GEOGRAPHICAL  AND  PICTORIAL: 

DESCRIBED  AND  ILLUSTRATED  AS  IT  WAS  AND  AS  IT  NOW  IS,  ALONG  THE  LINES  OF 

OUR   SAVIOUR'S  JOURNEYS. 

BY 

JOHN  FULTON,  D.D.,   LL.D. 

Introduction  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Henry  C.  Potter,  D.D. 

ILLUSTRATED     BY    FIFTEEN     MAPS    AND     CHARTS,    OVER    THREE    HUNDRED    ENGRAVINGS,   AND 
A   GRAND    PANORAMA   OF  JERUSALEM. 

"  This  handsome  volume  is  especially  designed  for  the  large  number  of  Bible  students 
who  never  expect  to  visit  the  Holy  Land.  Dr.  Fulton  is  a  learned  clergyman  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  who  ranks  high  as  a  clear,  forcible  and  thoughtful  writer,  and  his 
record  of  a  leisurely  journey  made  through  Palestine  is  well  worth  reading.  Many  books 
have  been  written  about  the  Holy  Land,  but  hardly  any  of  them  are  available  for  the  uses 
of  the  ordinary  student.  ...  To  take  such  a  journey  with  a  well-instructed  and 
sympathetic  cicerone,  is  a  great  privilege.  In  traveling  it  is  not  enough  to  see  ;  one 
needs  also  to  know  what  to  see  and  how  to  see  it.  Dr.  Fulton  does  not  simply  reproduce 
the  atmo  phere  of  the  distant  past  so  that  it  lives  again  before  us,  though  he  does  that; 
but  he  relates  to  us  in  a  pleasant  fashion  the  later  history  of  the  localities  whose  story  he 
tells,  so  that  the  chasm  between  the  days  of  old  and  the  present  day  is  bridged  over  for 
the  reader." — Frotn  the  New  York  Tribune. 

"  The  title  of  this  book  is  a  full  description  of  its  character  and  contents.  It  is  indeed 
a  most  valuable  volume  for  the  Christian  student  or  traveler  to  the  Holy  Land.  The  idea 
of  traveling  along  the  lines  of  our  Lord's  journeys  is  certainly  original,  and  the  exceeding 
care  and  pains  which  Dr.  Fulton  has  taken  to  be  accurate  in  his  statements  and  thorough 
in  every  part  of  the  work  increase  its  value." — Front  the  New  York  Observer, 

"  What  a  book,  we  think,  for  every  Bible-teacher  to  be  possessed  of!  Certainly,  at 
least,  no  Sunday-school  should  be  without  one  or  more  library  copies  for  the  teacher's 
reference,  to  the  enlightenment  of  his  task  of  making  all  things  clear  to  the  musing  and 
questioning  minds  of  the  young.  It  is  a  compendium  of  all  that  is  certainly  known  of  that 
Beautiful  Land,  related  in  a  style  of  rare  attractiveness,  and  it  will  be  found  a  fitting  gift 
for  pupils  who  have  excelled  in  their  Bible  lessons  and  studies." 

• — From  the  Living  Church. 


STYLES. 

1.  Handsomely  bound  in  best  silk  cloth,  with  rich  and  artistic 
stampings  in  ink  and  gold  on  front  cover  and  back.     Price,  $3.75. 

2.  The  same  style,  with  full  gilt  edges.     Price,  $4.50. 

3.  In  half  morocco  binding,  library  style,  strong  and  elegant. 
Price,  $6.00. 

JJ^^  An  Agent  wanted  in  every  parish.     For  terms  apply  to 

THOMAS  WHITTAKER,  2  AND  3  BIBLE  HOUSE,  HEW  YORK. 


THREE  IMPORTANT  WORKS  IN 
CHURCH  HISTORY. 


I. 

History  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church.  From  the 
Planting  of  the  Colonies  to  the  End  of  the  Civil  War. 
By  Rev.  S.  D.  McConnell,  D.D.  Third  Edition.  8vo, 
cloth,  $2.00. 

"Among  the  most  notable  and  valuable  of  the  books  that  appeared  during  the  past  year — 
in  the  closing  period  of  the  book  season— was,  'The  History  of  the  American  Episcopal 
Church'  from  the  planting  of  the  colonies  to  the  end  of  the  Civil  War.  The  author,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  McConnell,  is  one  of  the  most  vigorous,  clear-minded,  progressive  and  valuable 
men  enlisted  in  the  ranks  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  clergy.  He  has  given  us  a  book  of 
rare  merit  and  great  interest,  one  marked  feature  of  which  is  its  fairness,  its  determination 
to  tell  the  true  story  of  the  Church  without  desire  to  give  her  more  credit  than  she  deserves, 
or  withhold  from  her  any  of  the  praise  to  which  she  is  entitled.  .  .  .  Notonlydothe 
literary  execution  of  the  work  and  the  pervasive  spirit  of  candor  and  impartiality  deserve 
peculiar  commendation,  but  one  is  struck  with  the  patient  and  vigilant  scholarship  which, 
in  depicting  the  relation  of  the  Episcopal  Church  to  the  colonial  communities,  has  sought 
out  the  original  authorities." — Buffalo  Co7nmercial, 

II. 

The  Church  in  Nova  Scotia,  and  The  Tory  Clergy  of  the 
Revolution.  By  Rev.  Arthur  Wentworth  Eaton, 
B.A.      i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50  net. 

"  This  is  a  book  of  historical  value  and  interest,  not  merely  to  Anglican  and  Episcopalian 
Churchmen,  but  to  all  students  of  early  American  history.  Nova  Scotia  ought  to  have  a 
great  deal  of  interest  for  Americans,  for  it  was  to  that  Province  that  thousands  of  New 
Vork  and  New  England  tories  went  at  the  time  of  the  American  Revolution.  As  might 
naturally  be  expected  these  tories  were  nearly  all  staunch  and  devoted  Anglican  Church- 
men, so  that  while  on  one  hand  their  withdrawal  seriously  weakened  the  Episcopal  Church 
111  this  country,  it  made  Nova  Scotia,  the  oldest  Colonial  diocese  of  the  Church  of  England, 
the  most  important  centre  of  Anglicanism  on  this  continent.  That  alone  would  make  a 
chronicle  of  Anglicanism  in  Nova  Scotia  well  worth  reading  even  if  it  were  not  for  the 
circumstance  that  it  is  also  necessarily  and  inferentially  a  history  of  the  society  and  political 
life  of  the  Province. 

"  Mr.  Eaton,  who  is  himself  a  Nova  Scotian.  already  distinguished  in  the  world  of  letters, 
has  done  his  work  well.  His  study  of  the  old  archives  of  Nova  Scotia  has  been  thorough 
and  painstaking.  He  is  not  only  imbued  with  that  genuine  respect  for  facts  which 
distinguishes  the  true  historian,  but  he  is  also  gifted  with  that  sympathetic  imagination 
which  is  so  essential  for  a  comprehensive  and  lucid  presentation  of  facts." — N.  Y,  Tribune. 

III. 

The  Constitution  of  the  American  Church:  Its  History  and 
Rationale.  The  Bohlen  Lectures  for  1890.  By  Rt.  Rev. 
William  Stevens  Perry,  D.D.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 

"  Bishop  Perry  could  scarcely  have  rendered  a  more  acceptable  service  to  this  genera- 
tion than  he  has  done  by  writing  this  book.  .  .  .  We  wish  that  our  Bishops  and  all 
examining  chaplains  would  insist  upon  the  study  of  this  book  by  candidates  as  a  necessary 
qualification  for  ordination." — The  Standard  of  the  Cross, 


THOMAS  IHITTAKER,  2  AND  3  BIBLE  HOUSE,  NEW  YORK. 


THE  CYCLOPiEDIA  OF 
NATURE  TEACHINGS. 

WITH    AN    INTKODl'CTION    BY    REV. 

HUGH   MACMILLAN,  LL.D.,  F.R.S.E., 

AUTHOR    OF    "bible  TEACHINGS    IM    NATURE,"    ETC. 

8vo,  Cloth  Extra.     Price,  $2.50.  Just  Out. 

One  of  the  most  characteristic  features  of  modern  culture  is  the  attention 
given  to  the  facts,  moods  and  suggestions  of  "  Nature." 

Teachers  and  preachers  are  feeling  the  need  for  illustrations  from 
Nature  in  their  pulpit,  platform  and  class  work,  and  as  the  scientific 
knowledge  and  the  love  of  Nature  increase  in  schools  and  in  congregations, 
there  must  be  an  increasing  demand  for  illustrations  taken  from  the  spheres 
in  which  audiences  are  becoming  daily  more  interested. 

The  Cyclopaedia  of  Nature  Teaching's  is  a  collection  of  remarkable 
passages  from  the  writings  and  utterances  of  the  leading  authors,  preachers 
and  orators,  which  embody  suggestive  or  curious  information  concerning 
Nature.  Each  passage  contains  some  important  or  noteworthy  fact  or  state- 
ment which  may  serve  to  illustrate  religious  truth  or  moral  principles,  the 
extracts  being  gleaned  from  the  widest  and  most  varied  sources. 

The  passages  are  arranged  alphabetically  under  subjects,  and  subdivided 
so  as  to  elucidate  the  topic  treated  of  and  illustrate  it  in  every  possible  way. 
Thus  under  the  head  of  The  Air,  we  find  on  this  subject  passages  are 
given  on  The  Beauty  of  Clouds,  The  Mysteries  of  the  Clouds, 
Changes  in  the  Sky,  Mists  and  Sunshine,  The  Message  of  the 
Heavens,  Sky  Influences,  Autumn,  Sunshine,  Plants,  The  At- 
mosphere, etc.,  etc. 

That  the  Cyclopaedia  is  a  work  of  true  value  and  reliable  information  will 
be  seen  by  the  names  of  the  following  authors,  from  whose  writings,  among 
many  others,  some  of  the  extracts  are  taken,  viz.,  RusKiN,  Jefferies, 
Maclaren,  McCook,  Hugh  Macmillan,  Beecher,  Smiley,  Wilson, 
PuLSFORD,  Guthrie,  Froude,  Lytton,  Robertson,  Arthur,  Arnot, 
Herschel,  Procter,  Faber,  Taylor,  Dawson,  Helps,  Emerson, 
Dickens,  Agassiz,  Parker,  Conder,  Chalmers,  Baldwin,  Brown, 
Cuvier,  Richter,  Gcethe,  etc. 

The  volume  forms  a  most  valuable  work  of  reference,  and  by  its  orderly 
arrangement  puts  its  wealth  of  information  and  suggestion  at  the  disposition 
of  the  student  or  teacher  ;  but  the  varied  character  of  the  selections,  the 
freshness  of  the  subjects  treated,  and  the  literary  grace  of  many  of  the 
paragraphs  will  also  make  the  work  M'elcome  to  general  readers. 

The  Cyclopaedia  of  Nature  Teaching's  is  furnished  with  a  very 
copious  index  of  subjects,  and  also  one  of  Bible  texts. 

SEW  YORK :  THOMAS  IHITTAKER,  2  AKD  3  BIBLE  HOUSE. 


PROF.  T.  K.  CHEYNE'S  WORKS. 


The  Origin  and  Religious  Contents  of  the  Psalter,  in 

the  Light  of  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  History  of 
Religions.  With  an  Introduction  and  Appendixes.  Eight 
Lectures  Preached  before  the  University  of  Oxford  in  the 
Year  1889.     8vo,  cloth,  $4.00. 

"The  Oriel  Professor  at  Oxford  (Ur.  Cheyne)  is  an  earnest,  conscientious  and 
industrious  critic.  His  Bampton  Lectures  are  the  outcome  of  twenty  years'  study  and 
research.  He  asks  to  be  considered  not  a  'fledgeling,'  but  a  critic  of  fully  adequate 
experience,  not  a  '  Germanizer.'  but  an  honest  English  worker  in  Biblical  exegesis.  He 
settles  on  the  principles  of  the  '  higher  criticism  '  numerous  disputed  questions  in  regard  to 
the  Book  of  Psalms."— iV.  }'.  Times. 

The  Book  of  Psalms;  or,  the  Praises  of  Israel.    A  new 

Translation,  with  Commentary.     8vo,  cloth,  $3.00. 

"  We  not  only  welcome  this  volume  by  the  Canon  of  Rochester  as  a  delight  to  scholars, 
but  also  commend  it  to  all  devout  laymen  and  students  who,  believing  the  Bible  to  be  the 
Word  of  God,  may  yet  have  to  complain  of  having  it  expounded,  and  the  Gospel  preached, 
in  seventeenth  century  phrase,  and  with  the  traditionalist's  fear  of  the  dreadful  nineteenth 
century  knowledge  that  is  so  rapidly  cracking  the  rind  of  authorized  opinions." 

—  The  Critic. 

The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah.  A  new  Translation,  with  Com- 
mentary and  Appendixes.  Revised.  Two  volumes  in  one. 
8vo,  cloth,  $4,00. 

"  Mr.  Cheyne's  work  is  in  many  respects  one  of  the  most  noteworthy  of  our  day.  ,  . 
He  has  been  a  devout  and  careful  student  of  Isaiah  for  some  twenty  years  past." 

— A^.  Y.  Times. 
"  We  rejoice  that  a  Commentary  which  must  be  marked  'indispensable,'  is  thus  put 
within  the  reach  of  a  larger  number  of  those  who  love  the  great  prophet." 

— Andover  Review. 
"The  qualities  of  Mr.   Cheyne's  Commentary  would  make  it  a  good  book  in  any 
language,  or  almost  in  any  condition  of  Biblical  learning.     It  is  perspicuous  without  being 
superficial,  and  terse  without  the  omission  of  anything  of  importance," — Acadeviy. 

Job  and  Solomon ;  or,  the  Wisdom  of  the  Old  Testament. 

8vo,  cloth,  $2.50. 

"This  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  fascinating  and  delightfully  readable  works  in 
Biblical  criticism  that  has  come  under  our  eye  for  a  long  time.  If  Robertson  Smith  or 
Welhausen  had  a  style  like  that  of  Cheyne  the  rapidly  advancing  science  (or  art)  of 
Biblical  criticism  would  soon  be  amazingly'popular." — The  Critic. 

The  Hallowing  of  Criticism.  Nine  Sermons  on  Elijah, 
Preached  in  Rochester  Cathedral.  i2mo,  cloth,  red  edge, 
$2.00. 


THOMAS  WHITTAKER,  Publisher, 

2  and  3  Bible  House,  New  York. 


THE  RIGHT  ROAD 

A  Hand-Book  for  Parents  and  Teachers. 

BY    THE 

Rev.  JOHN  W.  KRAMER. 

12tno,  cloth  binding^  -  -  Price,  $1,25, 


"  There  is  not  a  dull  page  in  it.  Even  the  bad  boy  who  dislikes  moral 
lectures  will  like  pleasant  chats  :  he  will  take  the  moral  pills  for  the  sake 
of  their  sugar  coating,  if  for  nothing  else.  Parents  will  find  this  excellent 
book  helpful  in  getting  their  children  on  the  right  road  and  keeping  them 
there." — The  Home  Journal. 

"  '  The  Right  Road  '  presents  John  W.  Kramer's  plan  of  giving  instruc- 
tion to  children,  and  of  arousing  their  personal  interest  in  the  principles  and 
practice  of  Christian  morality.  By  means  of  simply  worded  observations, 
and  a  great  variety  of  short  stories,  he  undertakes  to  teach  a  child  something 
about  personal  responsibility,  right  and  duty.  Under  duty,  instruction  and 
illustrations  are  given  concerning  duties  to  one's  self — such  as  cleanliness, 
temperance,  truthfulness,  courage,  self-control,  order,  thrift,  culture  and 
purity,  duties  to  others — honor  of  parents,  patriotism,  honesty,  justice, 
mercy,  philanthropy,  courtesy,  gratitude  and  kindness  to  animals,  duties  to 
God — embracing  reverence,  worship  and  service." — The  Interior. 

"  As  a  treatise  on  practical  ethics  the  book  has  decided  merits.  It 
treats  of  nearly  all  aspects  of  morality,  setting  forth  the  nature  and  the 
obligation  of  the  various  kinds  of  duty  in  a  clear  and  simple  style  and  in  a 
manner  likely  to  interest  the  young.  The  different  virtues  and  vices  are 
illustrated  by  numerous  examples  in  the  story  form,  some  of  them  historical, 
other  fictitious,  and  many  of  them  are  fitted  not  only  to  illustrate  the  habits 
of  good  conduct,  but  to  inspire  the  reader  with  a  love  for  them.  The  book 
is  more  manly  than  such  books  usually  are,  the  strong  and  positive  virtues 
being  given  the  importance  that  justly  belongs  to  them.  The  last  section  of 
the  book  and  duty  to  God  is  excellent,  and  is  by  no  means  uncalled  for  in 
times  like  these." — Critic. 


THOMAS  WfllTTAKER,  %  AND  3  BIBLE  HOUSE,  NEW  YORK. 


AUBREY  L.  MOORE'S  WRITINGS. 


"With  preachers  like  Phillips  Brooks  and  M.  Bersier  the  late  Rev. 
Aubrey  L.  Moore  was  not  unworthy  to  take  rank,  though  his  strength  lay, 
perhaps,  in  delicacy  of  spiritual  perception  rather  than  in  the  more  ordinary 
and  popular  forms  of  pulpit  eloquence." — The  London    Times. 

I. 

Sermons  Preached  in  the  Chapel  Royal,  Whitehall.    By 

the  late  Rev.  Aubrey  L.  Moore.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 

Just  Out. 
II. 

The  Message  of  the  Gospel.  By  the  late  Rev.  Aubrey  L. 
Moore.     i2mo,  cloth,  75  cents. 

This  volume  contains  three  addresses  on  the  Message  of  the  Gospel ; 
two  on  Vocation  ;  and  six  sermons  before  the  University  of  Oxford  on  the 
following  topics  :  "  The  Veil  of  Moses,"  '*  The  God  of  Philosophy  and  the 
God  of  Religion,"  "  The  Claim  to  Authority,"  "  The  Power  of  Christ  on 
Moral  Life,"  "  The  Presence  of  God  in  the  Christian  and  the  Church," 
"  Decision  for  God." 

"  In  bulk  this  is  a  small  book,  but  like  a  jewel  casket,  small  itself,  its 
contents  are  of  great  price." — The  Churchtnan. 

III. 

Some  Aspects  of  Sin :  Three  Courses  of  Lent  Sermons. 

By   the    late    Rev.     Aubrey    L.    Moore.       i2mo,   cloth, 
75  cents. 

IV. 

Science  and  the  Faith.  Essays  of  Apologetic  Subjects. 
With  an  Introduction.    Second  Edition.    i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 


THOMAS  WHITTAKER,  Publisher, 

2  and  3  Bible  House,  New  York. 


CANON    FARRAR'S   SERMONS, 


I. 

EVERY-DAY  CHRISTIAN   LIFE; 

Or,  Sermons  by  the  Way. 
By  Frederick  W.  Farrar,  D.D.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.25. 

"  These  sermons  by  Canon  Farrar  are  the  ordinary  discourses  of 
a  parish  priest  to  a  customary  congregation.  They  are  upon  subjects  of 
every-day  life.  There  is  no  wide-ranging  speculation  among  them ; 
nothing  to  gratify  the  seeker  after  suggested  heresies,  or  at  least  the 
novelties  of  modern  rationalism.  But  they  are  very  delightful  sermons 
to  read — full  of  tender  thought  and  happy  suggestion,  and  written  in  a 
style  which  when  the  English  clergy  do  attain  it  is  one  of  the  happiest 
known  to  the  pulpit.  As  the  other  extreme  of  English  preaching,  the  dead- 
and-alive  manner  of  mere  perfunctory  talk  is  hateful  to  the  last  degree, 
so  is  this,  its  opjjosite,  peculiarly  pleasant." — The  Churchman. 

II. 

TRUTHS  TO  LIVE  BY: 

A   Companion   to   "  Every-Day   Christian   Life." 

By  the  same  author.  121110,  cloth,  $1.25. 
"  This  is  a  volume  of  practical  sermons  written  in  a  style  free  from 
mere  technical  language.  The  discourses  are  just  what  Dr.  Farrar 
claims  them  to  be — simple  pastoral  sermons.  They  deal  mainly  with 
doctrinal  and  fundamental  subjects  as  they  represent  an  attempt  "  to  make 
clear  some  of  the  most  essential  truth  of  Christian  faith."' — The  Observer, 


Contemporary  Pulpit  Library. 

New  Sermons  by  the  leading  Anglican   Preachers.     Square 

i2mo,  cloth,  gilt  top,  $r.oo  each. 
No.  I.     FIFTEEN  SERMONS.     By  Canon  Liddon. 
No.  2.     SIXTEEN  SERMONS.     By  Bishop  Magee. 
No.  3.     TWENTY  SERMONS.     By  Archdeacon  Farrar. 
No.  4.    FOURTEEN  SERMONS.     By  Canon  Liddon. 
No.  5.     FIFTEEN  SERMONS.     By  Bishop  Lightfoot 


THOMAS  WHITTAKER, 
2    AND     3     Bible    House,    Nen?v    York:. 


THE  DIVINE  LITURGY. 

Being  the  order  for  Holy  Communion  historically,  doc* 
trinally,  and  devotionally  set  forth  in  fifty  portions.  By 
the  Rev.  Herbert  Mortimer  Luckock,  D.D.,  Canon 
of  Ely.     414  pp.     1 2mo,  cloth,  $2.00. 

**  We  can  heartily  recommend  this  as  one  of  the  best  things  of  the 
kind  yet  published  for  the  general  reader.  It  treats  of  the  history  of  all 
parts  of  the  service,  rubrics,  the  text  itself,  technical  and  liturgical  terms 
and  expressions,  and  also  the  ritual  acts  in  rendering  the  service,  giving 
brief  expositions  of  the  meaning  and  teaching,  with  practical  suggestions 
of  a  devotional  character.  The  author's  position  is  that  of  a  positive 
but  conservative  Churchman,  in  the  best  sense  Catholic.  His  style  is 
clear  and  simple." — Pacific  Chute JwiaJt. 

"  We  gladly  give  our  recommendation  of  "The  Divine  Liturgy" 
in  its  historical  aspect,  and  add  that  Ave  can  think  of  nothing  equal  to  it 
in  trustworthiness  and  wide  array  of  facts." — The  Christian  Union. 

"The  Catholic  mindedness,  historical  accuracy,  and  wise  caution, 
of  Canon  Luckock  is  nowhere  more  apparent  than  in  this  important 
work.  It  will  prove  a  most  valuable  help  to  the  parochial  clergy  in  the 
regular  instruction  of  communicant  classes,  a  design  which  he  had  in 
view  in  its  preparation.  The  book  is  in  fifty  portions,  so  that  in  the 
case  of  monthly  instruction,  it  would  extend  as  a  manual  of  aid  for  a 
period  of  four  years." — Living  Church. 

BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 

AFTER  DEATH.  An  Examination  of  the  Testimony  of  the 
Primitive  Times  respecting  the  state  of  the  Faithful  Departed  and 
their  Relationship  to  the  Living.  Fifth  edition,  revised.  l2mo, 
cloth.     $1.50. 

STUDIES  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  PRAYER  BOOK. 

With  Appendices.     Second  edition.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 

FOOTPRINTS  OF  THE  SON  OF  MAN,  as  traced  by 
St.  Mark.  Being  eighty  portions  for  private  study,  family  reading 
and  instruction  in  Church.  With  an  Introduction  by  the  Lord 
Bishop  of  Ely.  New  and  cheaper  edition,  complete  in  one  volume. 
i2mo,  cloth,  $1.75. 

THE  BISHOPS  IN  THE  TOWER.  A  Record  of  Stirring 
Events  affecting  the  Church  and  Non-conformists  from  the  Restor- 
ation to  the  Rebellion.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 


THOMAS   WHITTAKER, 

2    AND    3    Bible    House,    New    York. 


CANON    ROW'S   NEW  BOOK, 


CHRISTIAN  THEISM. 

A  Brief  and  Popular  Survey  of  the  Evidences  upon  which 
it  rests,  and  the  Objections  urged  against  it  considered  and 
refuted.     By  C.  A.  Row,  M.A.     Small  8vo,  cloth,  $[.75. 

"Prebendary  Row  has  attained  high  repute  by  his  previous  publi- 
cations, but  we  doubt  if  he  has  written  anything  more  likely  to  be  useful 
than  the  present  volume,  in  which  he  sets  forth  in  a  popular  form  and 
with  clearness  and  force  of  style  the  chief  reasons  on  which  Christian 
theistic  belief  is  founded.  It  is  avowedly  a  popular  argument,  adapted 
to  the  needs  of  the  multitude  of  people  who  justly  complain  that  many 
excellent  treatises  dealing  with  the  subject  are  '  over  their  heads.'  It 
also  claims  to  be  a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  whole  question  as  it  is 
now  debated,  and  grapples  with  current  difficulties  and  objections  which, 
if  they  do  not  subvert  the  faith  of  many,  do  nevertheless  prevail  with 
some,  and  cause  widespread  disquiet  and  perplexity." 

—  The  Standard  of  the  Cross. 

' '  Among  all  the  works  of  Prebendary  Row  in  the  general  line  of 
Apologetics  of  Christian  belief,  and  they  are  many,  this  will  be  the  most 
prominent  in  the  list,  the  most  thoroughly  and  lastingly  useful." 

—  The  Living  Church. 

BY    THE    SAME    AUTHOR. 

REASONS      FOR      BELIEVING      IN      CHRISTIANITY. 

Addressed  to  busy  people.      i2mo,  cloth,  gilt  top,  75  cents. 

CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCE  VIEWED  IN  RELATION  TO 
MODERN  THOUGHT.  Bampton  Lectures  for  1877.  Fourth 
Edition.     8vo,  cloth,  $3.75- 

A  MANUAL  OF  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES.  i6mo, 
cloth,  75  cents. 

FUTURE  RETRIBUTION,  VIEWED  IN  THE  LIGHT 
OF  REASON  AND  REVELATION.     Svo,  cloth,  $2.5o„ 


THOMAS   WHITTAKER, 

2    AND    3    Bible    House,    New    York. 


Reason  and  Authority 
IN  Religion. 

By  J.  MACBRIDE  STERRETF,  D.D.,  Professor  ol 
Ethics  and  Apologetics  in  Seabury  Divinity  School. 
Author  of  "  Studies  in  Hegel's  Philosophy  of  Religion." 
i2mo,  cloth,  $i.oo. 


press  IRotices: 

"  A  philosophical,  keen  and  c'ever  mind  has  given  us  in  brief  form, 
one  of  the  most  satisfactory  studies  upon  these  important  topics  that  we 
ever  tried." — The  Living  Church, 

"  A  thoughtful  and  prudent  balancing  of  the  arguments  and  con- 
siderations that  are  apt  to  be  uppermost  in  the  speculations  of  open  and 
inquiring  minds  in  these  times."—  The  Independent. 

'■  I  have  never  seen  so  much  thought  put  into  so  narrow  limits 
or  "so  clearly  and  concisel)  stated." — Rev   E.  A.  Warriner. 

"  This  book  is  a  vigorous  essay  on  the  burning  question  regarding 
the  seat  of  authority  in  religion.  It  is  marked  throughout  by  candor, 
vigor  and  incisiveness  of  thought  and  will  repay  a  careful  reading." — 
Tke  iVew  Englander  and  Yale  Review. 

"  The  author  of  this  volume  has  already  become  favorably  known 
to  all  thinkers  upon  such  themes  by  his  '  Studies  in  Hegel's  Philosophy 
of  Religion.'  His  honesty  and  fairness,  his  cleariic-ss  of  statement, 
and  the  vigor  of  his  style  unite  to  form  a  model  in  this  method  of  dis- 
cu-ision.  it  is  a  book  compelling  close  thought,  and  filled  with  stimu- 
lating, healthful,  mteresting  work  for  good  thinkers  or  those  who  would 
become  such." — Public  Opinion. 

"  He  writes  as  a  scholar  and  a  philosopher,  and  his  discussion  in 
the  present  work  is  timely  and  fitted  to  restrain  adventurous  minds 
rom  dangerous  extremes."  —  The  Interior. 


THOMAS     V/HITTAKER, 

PUBLISHER, 


CHRIST     IN    THE     NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

By  THOMAS  A.  TIDBALL,  D.D.,  Rector  of  St.  Paul's 
Church,  Camden,  N.  J.  With  an  Introduction  by 
S.  D.  McCoNNELL,  D.D.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.25. 


"We  notice  on  nearly  every  page  the  extensive  reading  of  its 
author  and  the  judicial  mind,  which  not  only  attempts  but  proves  the 
authenticity  of  the  New  Testament  Books  and  their  drift  and  purpose. 
The  first  lecture  is  to  us  the  most  striking  ;  but  all  show  learning  and 
the  Christian  spirit.  We  know  of  no  work  which  in  like  compass  in- 
troduces <-o  well  the  various  books  of  the  New  Testament." — The 
Southern  Churchmati, 

"  The  volume  is  scholarly,  reverent,  gracefully  written,  spiritual  in 
tone  :  a  really  good  book  that  makes  one  better  as  it  clears  his  mind 
and  lifts  his  heart." — Every  Thursday. 

"  Dr.  Tidball's  style  is  felicitous  for  the  lecture  room,  exact  in  ex- 
pression, careful  in  the  right  presentation  and  due  rounding  of  his  facts, 
and  agreeably  free  fiom  any  pedantries  of  learning." — Living  Church. 

"  It  can  stand  on  its  own  merits  as  a  popular  presentation  of  a  sub- 
ject of  perennial  freshness." — The  Critic. 

"While  there  is  little  that  is  directly  polemic  in  these  pages,  this 
purpose  is  largely  attained,  and  that  in  the  best  possible  manner.  To 
each  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  the  question  is  virtually  ad- 
dressed, '  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?'  and  the  answer  is  of  great  apolo- 
getic value.  Through  all  the  obvious  differences  of  style  and  treatment 
can  be  seen  the  one  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  these  apparent  variations 
serve  only  to  give  a  clearer  outline  of  the  life  and  work  of  the  Great 
Exemplar." — Church/nan. 

"  The  introductory  chapter  to  this  volume,  consisting  of  thirty 
pages,  is  in  substance  very  similar  to  the  '  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament '  as  commonly  found  in  good  commentaries.  It  treats  of  the 
origin  and  formation  of  the  several  books  of  their  authors,  of  their 
general  scope,  and  of  recent  criticism.  It  also  gives  an  excellent 
definition  of  inspiration — the  manner  and  measure  of  it.  Then  follow 
nine  other  chapters  in  which  the  author  gives  a  study  of  the  whole  New 
Testament,  in  groups  of  books — the  Synoptic  Gospels,  St.  John's 
Gospel,  The  Acts,  the  Pauline  Epiftles,  etc.,  the  main  object  being  to 
bring  out  their  testimony  to  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of 
the  World." — Pacific  Churchman. 


THOMAS    WHITTAKER, 

PUBLISHER, 
^  &  8  BIBLE  HOUSE  HOUSE,  -  NEW  YORK. 


Ube  jpra^ger^Book  IReasott  Wlb^- 

A  Book  of  Questions  and  Answers  on  the  Doctrines,  Usages^ 
and  History  of  the  Church  as  suggested  by  the  Liturgy. 
For  Parochial  and  Sunday-school  uses.  By  Rev.  Nelson 
R.  Boss,  M.A.      i6mo,  paper  covers,  20  cents,  net. 

The  design  of  this  book  is  three-fold.  (i).  To  familiarize  the  reader  with 
the  Doctrines,  History  and  Ritual  of  the  Church,  as  they  are  suggested  by  the 
Offices  ;  (2).  To  bring  out  clearly  and  concisely  those  principles  of  Historic 
Christianity  which  distinguish  the  Episcopal  Church  f  om  all  other  religious 
bodies  ;  (3).  To  furnish  clear  and  concise  answers  to  the  popular  objections  so 
commonly  raised  against  the  Church  by  those  not  familiar  with  her  ways. 

Bishop  Seymour  says : 

Whoever  reads  "  The  Prayer-Book  Reason  Why"  will  find  it  a  treasury  of 
useful  information.  1  welcome  it  heartily.  I  believe  its  publication  will  be 
eminently  useful  and  beneficia  .  It  covers  a  great  deal  of  ground  and  instructs 
as  it  goes  forward. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel  Buel,  Emeritus  Professor  of  Systematic 

Divinity  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  says  : 

The  book  is  a  desideratum  which  I  wonder  has  not  been  disclosed  before. 
That  it  is  eminently  fitted  to  do  great  good  I  cannot  doubt,  and  that  it  will  be 
a  most  useful  book  in  the  hands  of  the  pastors  of  the  Church  I  firmly  believe. 
Throughout  the  work  the  Church  herself  has  spoken  for  the  benefit  of  her 
children. 

Bishop  Littlejohn  says : 

To  thousands  of  adult  members  of  the  Church,  if  the  book  could  only  be 
placed  in  their  hands,  it  would  be  a  valuable  help  to  clear  and  sound  thinking 
on  the  very  important  subjects  of  which  it  treats. 

Mr.  Whittaker,  the  Publisher,  says  : 

In  almost  every  case  where  I  send  out  a  sample  copy  of  "The  Prayer- 
Book  Reason  Why,"'  more  copies  are  immediately  ordered. 


PUBLISHED    BY 


THOS.  WHITTAKER,  2  and  3  Bible  House  New  York, 

And   For  Sale  by  all  Church   Booksellers. 


HISTORY    OF  THE 

AMERICAN  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 

FROM    THE    PLANTING    OF    THE    COLONIES    TO 
THE    END    OF    THE    CIVIL    WAR. 

By   S.    D.    McCONNELL,    D.D., 

Rector  of  St.  Stephen  s  Churchy  Phila. 

8V0,    CLOTH,    PLAIN,   $2.  OO  ;    WITH    GILT   TOP,    $2.25;     IN    HALF    CALF   OR    HALF   MOROCCO,   $3.00. 


OPINIONS 


"...  glad  to  possess  a  book  of  so  much  in- 
terest connected  with  the  American  Church." — 
The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

"...  so  vigorous,  concise  and  pregnant,  so 
fair  and  large,  so  entertaining  with  restrained 
wit,  and  so  sensible." — Bishop  Huntington. 

"...  racy  and  altogether  delightful.  It  will 
do  a  world  of  good  both  within  and  without  the 
Church." — Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  R.  Huntington. 

"...  a  good  piece  of  work  well  done,  satis- 
factory and  honest,  and  which  will  stand." — 
Bishop  Hugh  Miller  Thompson. 

*'  .  .  .  the  whole  book  has  flavour,  and  no- 
where falls  into  feebleness." — Dr.  S.  Weir 
Mitchell. 


THOMAS    WHITTAKER, 
IPublieber, 

2  AND  3   BIBLE   HOUSE,         -         -         -         NEW  YORK. 


THE  CHIEF  THINGS; 

OR,  CHURCH  DOCTRINE  FOR  THE  PEOPLE. 

By  REV.  A.  W.  SNYDER. 

\2mo,   Cloth  binding,  $i.oo.  Paper  covers.  50   Cents. 


'  It  is  just  what  we  want." — Bishop  Whitehead. 

"  It  is  an  indispensable  aid  in  parish  work." — Rev.  C.  W. 
Leffingiuell,  D.D. 

"  The  author  has  gathered  into  a  volume  twenty-six  essays  on 
just  those  topics  and  questions  pertaining  to  Church  faith  and  wor- 
ship, on  which  a  multitude  of  people,  both  without  and  within  our 
congregations,  need  to  be  instructed.  The  statements  are  always 
clear,  concise,  direct,  and  persuasive.  There  is  nothing  extravagant, 
overwrought,  fantastic,  or  bitter.  Many  of  the  essays  would  make 
excellent  chapters  for  lay  reading." — Rt.  Rev.  F.  D.  Huti'^ngion^ 
D.D. 

"  It  does  not  deal  with  the  one  thing  needful  in  order  to  be 
saved,  but  with  a  considerable  number  of  things  th  .t  is  necessary  to 
believe,  in  order  to  be  sound.  It  is  written  in  a  stirring,  off-hand 
way,  and  the  person  who  reads  it  carefully,  and  uses  it  freely,  will 
be  a  perpetual  thorn  in  the  flesh  of  all  sectarian  associates,  and 
generally  regarded  by  disinterested  parties  as  decidedly  a  tough  rut 
to  ciack.  'I  ne  book  is  a  beautiful  specimen  of  t)pographical  art." 
—  Standard  of  the  Cross. 

"It  enunciates  the  'Chief  Things'  so  clearly  that  the  wa\'- 
faring  man,  though  a  fool,  can  hardlv  mistake  the  meaning.  The 
thoughts  are  so  clear  and  clean  cut,  that  the  book  must  be  helpful 
to  many  seekers  after  truth  and  the  Church." — Rt.  Rev.  IV.  A. 
Leonatd,  D.D. 

"  The  Church  throughout  this  land  of  ours  is  badly  in  need  of 
just  such  teaching  as  this  book  contains." — Rt.  Rev.  E.  G.  Weed, 
D.D. 


*^*  Copies  sent  by  f/iail,  postage  free,  on  receipt  of  price. 

THOMAS   WH!TTAKER, 

2  and  3  Bible  House,  NEW  YO(?K. 


Thoughts  on  Life,  Death 
and  Immortahty. 

Selected  from  the  unpublished  writings  of  the  late  Samuel 
Sm'th  Harris,  Bishop  of  Michigan.  By  Charlotte 
Wood  Slocum.  i2mo,  cloth,  gilt  edges,  $i  ;  cloth 
plain,  75  cents. 


"  1  hese  thoughts  of  Bishop  Harris  are  simply  admirable." — Southern 
ChurchnicDi. 

"  The  work  of  selection  has  been  performed  by  Charlotte  Wood 
Slocum,  who  knew  Bishop  Harris  intimately,  and  was  fully  aware  of  his 
extreme  sensibility  to  print.  She  has  done  her  task  with  taste  and  judg- 
ment, and  both  religion  and  literature  are  enriched  by  her  efforts." — 
Chicago  Post. 

"  There  is  in  these  thoughts  the  originality  which  comes  from 
personal  and  independent  experience,  there  is  the  fiery  glow  that  faith 
and  hope  alone  minister,  there  i  the  simplicity  that  sheer  earnestness 
alone  finds  utterance  in." — The  Churchman. 

"A  collection  of  solid  nuggets  and  polished  gems.'' — The 
lndepe)idint. 

"  They  show  the  writer  had  profited  by  experience  in  the  school  of 
life,  and  the  practical  sagacity  lends  additional  value  to  the  brief  dis- 
courses, which  have  a  deligtitfuUy  unpremeditated  air.  Evidently  the 
Bishop  understood  how  far  every  man  may  make  his  own  world.  It  is 
rather  singular  that  these  passages  do  not  appear  to  suffer  from  loss  of 
context,  but  the  lack  of  elaboration  only  serves  to  throw  the  thought 
into  higher  relief.  These  are  tonic  utterances,  and  show  a  manly  spirit  ; 
the  remarks  on  responsibility  and  the  issues  of  life  may  be  taken  as 
typical  extra cts."--Z>^/r^^/  Fne  Press. 

"  This  little  volume  of  extracts  furnishes  new  proofs  of  the  high 
ideals  cherished  by  Dr.  Harris,  of  his  catholicity  of  spirit,  and  of  his 
loyalty  to  Christ's  gospel." — The  Interior,  Chicago. 


THOMAS    WHITTAKER, 

PUBLISHER, 
2   &   3    BIBLE    HOUSE,         -  NEW    YORK. 


BW766.F97 

The  Chalcedonian  decree  :  or,  Historical 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 
'  III 


